G.R. No. 139789. May 12, 2000.

*
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I. BILDNER
and SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
respondents.
G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000.
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, and
SYLVIA ILUSORIO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, respondents.
Actions; Habeas corpus; A writ of habeas corpus extends to all
cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by which the rightful custody
of a person is withheld from the one entitled theretoit is devised as a
speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint,
as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.As
heretofore stated, a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention, 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. 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.
_______________
*

FIRST DIVISION.
170

17
0

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

Same; Same; The essential object and purpose of the writ of ha-beas
corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint, and to
relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.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. To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of
liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of
action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not
merely nominal or moral.
Same; Same; Mental Incapacity; The fact that a person 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.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.
Same; Same; Right to Privacy; A person of sound mind is possessed
with the capacity to make choices, and even as the choices he makes may
not appeal to some of his family members these are choices which
exclusively belong to him.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.
Same; Same; Same; A person with full mental capacity coupled with
the right of choice may not be the subject of visitation rights against his
free choice.With his full mental capacity coupled with the right of
choice, Potenciano Ilusorio may not be the subject of
171

VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

171

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. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Husband and Wife; Marriage; 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.
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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.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.

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Singson, Valdez & Associates for E. Ilusorio.
Roxas, Delos Reyes, Laurel & Rosario for P. Ilusorio.
Agcaoili Law Offices for Sylvia K. Ilusorio-Yap.
Roco, Bunag, Kapunan & Migallos and Lino M. Patajo for E.
Bildner.
172

17
2

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

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
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. Ilusorio6 is to reverse the decision7 of
the Court of Appeals and its resolution8 dismissing the
_______________
Ordoez vs. Vinarao, 239 SCRA 114 (1994).
David vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 82 (1995).
3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III, 1997 edition, p. 780, citing
Bouviers Law Dictionary.
4 Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677 (1995); Umil vs. Ramos, 202
SCRA 251 (1991); Arriba vs. People, 107 SCRA 191 (1981), citing Chief Justice
Marshall, Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 202 (1830).
5 Ortiz vs. Del Villar, 57 Phil. 19 (1932).
6 In G.R. No. 139789, filed on October 11, 1999, for certiorari under Rule 45,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rollo, pp. 10-26.
7 In CA-G.R. SP No. 51689, promulgated on April 5, 1999, Rollo, pp. 29-38.
8 Issued on August 25, 1999, Rollo, pp. 40-43.
173
1
2

VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000

173
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
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 Ilusorio9 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:
Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio.
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age possessed of
extensive property valued at millions of pesos. For many years,
lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio was Chairman of the Board and
President of Baguio Country Club.
On July 11, 1942, Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio
contracted matrimony and lived together for a period of thirty (30)
years. In 1972, they separated from bed and board for undisclosed
reasons. Potenciano lived at Urdaneta Condominium, Ayala Ave.,
Makati City when he was in Manila and at Ilusorio Penthouse,
Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio City. On the other
hand, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.
Out of their marriage, the spouses had six (6) children, namely:
Ramon Ilusorio (age 55); Erlinda Ilusorio Bildner (age 52); Maximo
(age 50); Sylvia (age 49); Marietta (age 48); and Shereen (age 39).
On December 30, 1997, upon Potencianos arrival from the

United States, he stayed with Erlinda for about five (5) months in
Antipolo City. The children, Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin), alleged that
during this time, their mother gave Potenciano an overdose of 200
mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft, an anti_______________
9 In G.R. No. 139808, filed on September 14, 1999, for certiorari as a Special Civil
Action under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rollo, pp. 3-35.
174

17
4

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

depressant drug prescribed by his doctor in New York, U.S.A. As a
consequence, Potencianos health deteriorated.
On February 25, 1998, Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial
Court, Antipolo City a petition10 for guardianship over the person
and property of Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latters advanced age,
frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment.
On May 31, 1998, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio
City, Potenciano Ilusorio did not return to Antipolo City and instead
lived at Cleveland Condominium, Makati.
On March 11, 1999, Erlinda filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of lawyer Potenciano
Ilusorio. She alleged that respondents11 refused petitioners demands
to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from
returning to Antipolo City.
After due hearing, on April 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals
rendered decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, judgment is
hereby rendered:
(1) Ordering, for humanitarian consideration and upon petitioners
manifestation, respondents Erlinda K. Ilusorio Bildner and Sylvia
Ilusorio-Yap, the administrator of Cleveland Condominium or anywhere
in its place, his guards and Potenciano Ilusorios staff especially Ms.
Aurora Montemayor to allow visitation rights to Potenciano Ilusorios
wife, Erlinda Ilusorio and all her children, notwithstanding any list
limiting visitors thereof, under penalty of contempt in case of violation or
refusal thereof; x x x
(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
_______________
Guardianship Proceeding No. 99-757.
In G.R. No. 139789.
12 Rollo, pp. 29-37, Justice Ibay-Somera, ponente, Justices Conchita Carpio
Morales and Bernardo P. Abesamis concurring.
175
10
11

VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000

175
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
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
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.
_______________
Ordoez vs. Vinarao, supra, Note 1.
14 Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986).
13

Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 788 (1919).

16 Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 663 (1996).
17 Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
18 Zagala vs. Ilustre, 48 Phil. 282 (1925), citing 29 C.J., sec. 13.
15

176

17
6

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

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.
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

177

VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000

177
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
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.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and YnaresSantiago, JJ., concur.
Petition in G.R. No. 139789 dismissed, while in G.R. No. 139808
petition granted.
Notes.The writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a means
of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person. (Subayno vs.
Enrile, 145 SCRA 282 [1996])
The right to control the collection, maintenance, use, and
dissemination of data about oneself is called informational privacy
while the right to make personal decision or conduct personal
activities without intrusion, observation or interference is called
autonomy privacy. (Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 241 [1998])
o0o
178

17
8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rimorin

Copyright 2012 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.