Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age possessed of
[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.
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.