Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and
SYLVIA
K.
and
SYLVIA
ERLINDA
K.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in
conjugal bliss? The answer is no. Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal
dwelling may not be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus.
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, [1] or by
which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. [2] Slx
"Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause
of his capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge
awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf."[3]
It is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of ancient origin, the great object of which is
the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. [4] It is issued
when one is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented from exercising legal custody
over another person.[5]
The petition of Erlinda K. Ilusorio[6] is to reverse the decision[7] of the Court of Appeals and
its resolution[8] dismissing the application for habeas corpus to have the custody of her
husband, lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio and enforce consortium as the wife.
On the other hand, the petition of Potenciano Ilusorio [9] is to annul that portion of the
decision of the Court of Appeals giving Erlinda K. Ilusorio visitation rights to her husband
and to enjoin Erlinda and the Court of Appeals from enforcing the visitation rights.
The undisputed facts are as follows: Scslx
Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio.
"(2) ORDERING that the writ of habeas corpus previously issued be recalled
and the herein petition for habeas corpus be DENIED DUE COURSE, as it is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the subject of
the petition.
"SO ORDERED."[12]
Hence, the two petitions, which were consolidated and are herein jointly decided.
As heretofore stated, a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement
or detention,[13] or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one
entitled thereto. It is available where a person continues to be unlawfully denied of one
or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due process, where the
restraints are not merely involuntary but are unnecessary, and where a deprivation of
freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary. [14] It is devised as a speedy and
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, as the best and only
sufficient defense of personal freedom.[15] Jksm
The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all
manner of involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is
illegal.[16]
To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and
involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. [17] The illegal restraint of liberty must be
actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral.[18]
The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of
lawyer Potenciano Ilusorios liberty that would justify the issuance of the writ. The fact
that lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age, or under medication does not
necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. Soundness of mind does not hinge on age
or medical condition but on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions.
After due hearing, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no unlawful restraint on
his liberty.
The Court of Appeals also observed that lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio did not request the
administrator of the Cleveland Condominium not to allow his wife and other children
from seeing or visiting him. He made it clear that he did not object to seeing them.
As to lawyer Potenciano Ilusorios mental state, the Court of Appeals observed that he
was of sound and alert mind, having answered all the relevant questions to the
satisfaction of the court.
Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the capacity to make choices. In this
case, the crucial choices revolve on his residence and the people he opts to see or live
with. The choices he made may not appeal to some of his family members but these are
choices which exclusively belong to Potenciano. He made it clear before the Court of
Appeals that he was not prevented from leaving his house or seeing people. With that
declaration, and absent any true restraint on his liberty, we have no reason to reverse
the findings of the Court of Appeals.
With his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, Potenciano Ilusorio may not
be the subject of visitation rights against his free choice. Otherwise, we will deprive him
of his right to privacy. Needless to say, this will run against his fundamental
constitutional right. Es m
The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority when it awarded visitation rights in a
petition for habeas corpus where Erlinda never even prayed for such right. The ruling is
not consistent with the finding of subjects sanity.
When the court ordered the grant of visitation rights, it also emphasized that the same
shall be enforced under penalty of contempt in case of violation or refusal to comply.
Such assertion of raw, naked power is unnecessary.
The Court of Appeals missed the fact that the case did not involve the right of a parent to
visit a minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In case the husband refuses
to see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat of any penalty
attached to the exercise of his right.
No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife.
Coverture cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by
sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is
best left to the man and womans free choice.
WHEREFORE, in G. R. No. 139789, the Court DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit. No
costs.
In G. R. No. 139808, the Court GRANTS the petition and nullifies the decision of the Court
of Appeals insofar as it gives visitation rights to respondent Erlinda K. Ilusorio. No costs.
SO ORDERED.