You are on page 1of 2

ILUSORIO VS BILNER

FACTS:

Erlinda Kalaw is the wife of Potenciano Ilusorio, who is about 86 yrs old and
possessed extensive properties valued at millions.
On July 1942, they contracted matrimony and lived together for a period of
30 years.
In 1972, they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons.
Potenciano lived at Urdaneta Condominium in Makati City when he was in
Manila and at Ilusorio Penthouse in Baguio Country Club when he was in
Baguio. Meanwhile, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.
They had 6 children, namely: Ramon, Erlinda Ilusorio-Bildner, Maximo, Sylvia,
Marietta and Shereen.
On December 1997, upon arriving from US Potenciano stayed with Erlinda in
Antipolo City. Erlindas two daughters (Sylvia and Erlinda Ilusorio-Bildner)
alleged that it was during this time that their mother gave Potenciano an
overdose of anti-depressant drug prescribed in US. As a result Potencianos
health deteriorated.
On Feb. 1998, filed with RTC guardianship over the person and property of
Potenciano due to the latters (A-F-P-I) advanced age, frail health, poor
eyesight, and impaired judgment.
On May 1998, after attending a meeting in Baguio City Potenciano did not
return to Antipolo City.
On March 1999, Erlinda filed with CA a petition for habeas corpus.
CA, on April 1999, rendered a decision ordering Bildner and Yap to allow
visitation rights to the wife Erlinda and other children. CA also ordered the
writ of habeas corpus be recalled and the petition for habeas corpus be
denied in due course.

ISSUE:
WON a wife may secure a WHC to compel her husband to live with her in
conjugal bliss.
HELD:
SC ruled that Erlinda Ilusorio, the wife of Potenciano Ilusorio, in this case, cannot
secure a WHC.
The essential object and purpose of the WHC 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. Herein, 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.

Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the capacity to make choices.
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.
Still, 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.