FIRST DIVISION

[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. Mesm

[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.

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.

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 antidepressant 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 petition[10] 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. Slxsc

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 respondents[11] 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 of refusal thereof; xxx
 "(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.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. 5/31/00 10:02 AM
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
GR No. 139789, May 12, 2000

FACTS:

Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer, 86 year old of age, possessed extensive property valued at millions of pesos. For many year, he was the
Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country Club. He was married with Erlinda Ilusorio, herein petitioner, for 30 years and
begotten 6 children namely Ramon, Lin Illusorio-Bildner (defendant), Maximo, Sylvia, Marietta and Shereen. They separated from bed
and board in 1972. Potenciano lived at Makati every time he was in Manila and at Illusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he
was in Baguio City. On the other hand, the petitioner lived in Antipolo City.

In 1997, upon Potencianos arrival from US, he stayed with her wife for about 5 months in Antipolo city. The children, Sylvia and Lin,
alleged that during this time their mother overdose Potenciano which caused the latters health to deteriorate. In February 1998,
Erlinda filed with RTC petition for guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano due to the latters advanced age, frail
health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment. In May 1998, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio, Potenciano did not return to
Antipolo instead lived at Cleveland Condominium in Makati. In March 1999, petitioner filed with CA petition for habeas corpus to have
the custody of his husband alleging that the respondents refused her demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano
from returning to Antipolo.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioned writ of habeas corpus should be issued.

HELD:

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. To justify the grant for such petition, the restraint of liberty must an illegal and involuntary deprivation of
freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective not merely nominal or moral.

Evidence showed that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of Potencianos liberty that would justify issuance of
the writ. The fact that the latter was 86 years of age and under medication does not necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. He
still has the capacity to discern his actions. With his full mental capacity having the right of choice, he may not be the subject of
visitation rights against his free choice. Otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to privacy.

The case at bar does not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In any event, that
the husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat or any penalty attached to the exercise of
his right. Coverture, is a matter beyond judicial authority and cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out
by the sheriffs or by any other process.

Potenciano vs. CA
GR No. 139789, 139808, July 19, 2001

FACTS:

In March 1999, Erlinda Illusorio, the wife of herein petitioner, Potenciano, petitioned for habeas corpus which was dismissed on May
2000 for lack of merit and granted the petition to nullify the CA ruling giving visitation rights to Erlinda. This case before SC is Erlindas
motion to reconsider the decision made. A conference was set on September 2000 to determine the propriety and relevance of a
physical and medical examination of Potenciano and how it will be conducted. Erlindas motion to have Potenciano be medically
examined by a team of medical experts appointed by the Court was denied with finality in March 2001.

ISSUE: Whether a court can validly issue an order compelling the husband to live together and observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity.

HELD:

Erlinda claimed that she was not compelling Potenciano to live with her in consortium but clearly she wanted the latter to live with her
and is the root cause of her petition. What the law provides is that husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity. The sanction thereof is the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate
or court order to enforce consortium.

Evidently, there was absence of empathy between Erlinda and Potenciano having separated from bed and board since 1972. Empathy
as defined by SC is a shared feeling between husband and wife experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a
deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way process. It is for two loving adults who view the relationship with
respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to togetherness, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.

Potenciano vs. CA
G.R. No. 139789, 139808 July 19, 2001

Facts: Erlinda Ilusorio, the matriarch who was so lovingly inseparable from her husband some years ago, filed a petition with the Court
of Appeals for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband in consortium. However, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision
dismissing the petition for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the subject, Potenciano Ilusorio.

Erlinda Ilusorio filed with the Supreme Court an appeal via certiorari pursuing her desire to have custody of her husband Potenciano
Ilusorio. This case was consolidated with another case filed by Potenciano Ilusorio and his children, Erlinda Bildner and Sylvia Ilusorio
appealing from the order giving visitation rights to his wife, asserting that he never refused to see her. The Supreme Court dismissed
the petition for habeas corpus for lack of merit, and granted the petition to nullify the Court of Appeals' ruling giving visitation rights to
Erlinda Ilusorio.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner can assert Article 68 and 69 of Family Code to have custody of her husband in consortium.

Ruling: The Supreme Court agrees that as spouses, they are duty bound to live together and care for each other as provided by Article
68 and 69. However, there was absence of empathy between spouses Erlinda and Potenciano, having separated from bed and board
since 1972. Only the moral obligation of the spouses constitutes the motivating factor for making them observe the said duties and
obligations which are highly personal. Therefore, they deny the petitioners motion for reconsideration.