Case No.
72 | Habeas Corpus Ilusorio alleging that Erlinda Bildner and Sylvia Ilusorio
ERLINDA ILUSORIO v. ERLINDA BILDNER
G.R. No. 139789, May 12, 2000
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO v. CA and ERLINDA ILUSORIO
G.R. No. 139808, May 12, 2000
Thesis Statement:
These are two petitions consolidated and jointly decided by
the Court.
The petition of Erlinda Ilusorio seeks to reverse the decision
of the CA and its resolution dismissing her application for
Habeas Corpus to have a custody of her husband,
Potenciano Ilusorio, and enforce consortium as the wife.
The petition of Potenciano Ilusorio seeks to annul the
portion of the decision of the CA giving Erlinda Ilusorio
visitation rights to her husband and to enjoin Erlinda and
CA from enforcing the visitation rights.
Facts:
Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer and was a
Chairman of the Board and President of the Baguio Country
Club for many years, were married for 30 years since July
11, 1942 and they have 6 children (Ramon, Erlinda Bildner,
Maximo, Sylvia, Marietta, and Shereen).
In 1972, they separated from bed and board for personal
reasons. Potenciano lived at Urdaneta Condominium, Ayala
Ave., Makati City when he was in Metro Manila and at the
Ilusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in
Baguio City. Erlinda, however, lived in Antipolo City.
After arriving from the US on December 1997, Potenciano
stayed with Erlinda in Antipolo City for 5 months.
The siblings (Erlinda Bildner and Sylvia) alleged that their
mother gave their father an overdose of Zoloft, an anti-
depressant drug prescribed by Potenciano’s doctor in USA
causing the deterioration of health of Potenciano.
On February 1998, Erlinda Ilusorio filed before the RTC of
Antipolo City a petition for guardianship over the person
and property of Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latter’s
advanced age (about 86 years old), frail health, poor
eyesight and impaired judgment.
Potenciano did not return to Antipolo City and instead lived
at Cleveland Condominium, Makati City on May 1998 after
attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City.
Consequently, Erlinda Ilusorio filed before the CA a petition
for Habeas Corpus to have the custody of Potenciano
refused the demands of Erlinda Ilusorio to see and visit her
husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to
Antipolo City.
The CA rendered a decision denying Erlinda Ilusorio’s
petition for Habeas Corpus for lack of unlawful restraint or
detention of Potenciano Ilusorio. However, the CA granted
Erlinda visitation rights to Potenciano Ilusorio under
penalty of contempt in case of violation of the refusal
thereof.
Hence these two petitions.
Issue/s:
1. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for
Habeas Corpus.
2. WON the CA erred in granting Erlinda Ilusorio the
visitation rights.
Ruling:
1. NO. The CA did not err in dismissing the petition for
Habeas Corpus.
The SC had no reason to reverse the decision of the
CA because the CA found through the evidence
shown that there’s no actual and effective
detention or deprivation and true restraint on
Potenciano’s liberty to justify the issuance of the
writ. It was observed that Potenciano made it clear
that he did not object seeing her even making no
request to not allow his wife or children to see and
visit him in Cleveland Condominium and he is not
mentally incapacitated. Soundness of mind does
not hinge on age or medical condition but on
the capacity of the individual to discern his
actions. Hence, Potenciano is of sound mind having
answered relevant questions to the Court’s
satisfaction. Having a sound mind, he has the
capacity to make own choices. Moreover, the
choices he made may not appeal to some of his
family members but these are choices
exclusively belongs to Potenciano.
2. YES. The CA erred in granting Erlinda Ilusorio the
visitation rights.
The CA exceeded in authority when it awarded
visitation rights where Erlinda Ilusorio never
prayed for such right. Since Potenciano has full
mental capacity with right of choice, he may not be
subjected to visitation rights against his free
choice. Otherwise, the Court will deprived him of
his right to privacy. The CA missed the fact that
the case did not involve the right of a parent to
visit a minor child but the right of the wife to
visit a husband. In the case the husband refuses
to see his wife for private reasons, he is at
liberty to do so without the 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. This is a matter
beyond judicial authority and is best left to the
man and the woman’s free choice.
Case No. 73 | Habeas Corpus
Case No. 74 | Habeas Corpus
Case No. 75 | Habeas Corpus
Case No. 76 | Habeas Corpus
SPO2 GERONIMO MANALO ET AL v. HON. PNP CHIEF
OSCAR CALDERON
G.R. No. 178920, October 15, 2007
Thesis Statement:
SPO2 Geronimo Manalo et al, filed a petition for the issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus assailing the restrictive custody
and monitored movements of them by the PNP, Region 4-A
after said petitioners were implicated in the burning of an
elementary school in Taysan, Batangas at the height of the
May 2007 national and local elections.
Facts:
At around 3 AM on May 15, 2007, five unidentified
malefactors armed with high-powered firearms forcibly
entered Polling Precinct 76-A in Pinagbayan Elementary
School in Taysan, Batangas which was converted as a
polling area for the 2007 national and local elections. They
poured gasoline over a ballot box in the said precinct and
then fired several rounds of ammunitions at the premises
setting the room ablaze.
Consequently, 2 were reported dead (a school teacher as an
election supervisor and a poll watcher) and several others
reportedly injured.
In the investigation, several key eyewitnesses identified
some of the petitioners as the perpetrators of the school
burning and all of the petitioners, who are all members of
the PNP Regional Special Operations Group, failed to timely
respond to the incident in the aforementioned room.
Acting on the report, the PNP hierarchy issued a successive
memoranda (May 18, May 22, and June 28, 2007) which
imposed limitations upon the petitioners by monitoring
their movements within the premises of the camp; that they
have to be escorted whenever the circumstances warrant
that they leave the camp; and that their estimated time of
departure and arrival shall be entered into a logbook.
The arguments of the petitioners are as follows:
 Although not detained or imprisoned because they
are PNP officers, their physical movements are
limited only within the Camp Vicente Lim in
Laguna and that they cannot go home to their
respective families;
 If they would leave the camp, they need to be
escorted;
 Their restrictive custody status is illegal and not
sanctioned by the constitution and the laws;
 That it is degrading, summarily and arbitrarily
imposed on the basis of mere suspicion;
 Makes PNP members enjoy lesser rights than what
are actually enjoyed by ordinary citizens.
 That what is only sanctioned is preventive
suspension under which they can enjoy liberty and
go home with their families pending the
administrative investigation.
The OSG, as required by the Court, made a comment that the
petition be dismissed on the ground of mootness because
by the issuance of the Memorandum Order of August 2007,
the respondents recalled the assailed memoranda of May 22
and June 28 containing the restrictive custody order which
were effective immediately.
Issue/s:
1. WON the Court should dismiss the petition on the
ground of mootness.
2. WON SPO2 Manalo et al are unlawfully detained or
restrained of their liberty under their restrictive
custody status.
Ruling:
1. NO. The Court should NOT dismiss the petition
based on the ground of mootness.
Although the general rule is that mootness of the
issue warrants a dismissal, there are exceptions.
namely, (1) If there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; (2) If the exceptional character of
the situation and the paramount public interest
is involved; (3) if when the constitutional issue
raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, bar, and the
public; and (4) if the case is capable of repetition
yet evading review. Every bad and unusual
incident where police officers are involved
generates public interest and the lack of
 disciplinary steps taken against them erode public
confidence in the police institution. The matter is
also capable of repetition and it is better
to resolve now for the education and the guidance
of all concerned.
2. NO. SPO2 Manalo et al are NOT unlawfully detained
or restrained of their liberty under their respective
custody status.
The petition fails to convince the Court that the
petitioners are actually and unlawfully detained
due to the following reasons:
 The assailed memoranda decreeing the
monitoring of their movements are NOT
considered a form of curtailment of their
freedom because they are allowed to go in
and out of the camp as they please.
Petitioners themselves admit that they are
NOT actually detained or imprisoned,
 The restrictive custody they complained of
is only of a nominal restraint. It is a
permissible precautionary measure to
assure PNP authorities that the police
officers concerned are always accounted
for. If the custodial procedure were not
taken, the police superiors themselves will
be administratively liable.
 The PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of
1998 clearly provides that members of the
police force are subject to the
administrative disciplinary machinery of
the PNP including the restrictive custody
that may be imposed as a matter of
internal discipline. The PNP is well within
its authority to place them under tight
watch until the termination of the
investigation. (Incident done during
election period).
 The PNP although civilian in character, its
members are subject to disciplinary
authority of the PNP Chief, PNP,
NAPOLCOM. Police officers are NOT
similarly situated with ordinary civil
service employees because they have their
own administrative disciplinary
mechanism different from those of other
government employees.
Case No. 77| Writ of Amparo
SPS ROZELLE RAYMOND MARTIN AND CALUDINE
MARGARET SANTIAGO v. RAFFY TULFO, BEN TULFO,
and ERWIN TULFO
G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015
Thesis Statement:
The Spouses Santiago filed a petition for review on
certiorari assailing the resolutions of the RTC of Quezon
City which dismissed the petition for writ of amparo filed by
the said spouses and which dissolved the Temporary
Protection Order (TPO).
Facts:
On May 6, 2012 at around 11:40 in the morning, spouses
Santiago arrived at the NAIA Terminal 3 aboard Cebu Pacific
Airline flight from a family vacation. While waiting for their
baggage, they were informed that their baggage were
offloaded and transferred to a different flight.
Consequently, the spouses lodged a complaint before the
Cebu Pacific complaint desk and while they were
complaining, they noticed a man taking photos of Claudine
which was later identified as Mon Tulfo. Ray Mart
approached the man asking what he was doing but the man
punched and kicked Ray Mart forcing the latter to fight
back. As Claudine saw the commotion and approached Mon,
the latter also allegedly kicked and pushed Claudine. Ray
Mart defend his wife and another man join the brawl. Later
on, they were brought to the Airport Police Department for
investigation.
Days later, the Tulfo brothers (Raffy, Ben, and Erwin) made
comments about the incident defending their brother Mon
while being aired on their TV program and threaten the
petitioners that they will retaliate. Terrified by the threats,
the spouses filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of
Amparo against the Tulfo brothers before the RTC. In
return, Erwin Tulfo filed a Manifestation and Motion to
Deny Issuance of Protection Order and/or Dismissal of the
Petition which was opposed by the spouses for being a
prohibited pleading.
Judge Vargas grant the TPO in favor of the petitioners while
Ben Tulfo in his answer that the statements uttered did not
involve any actual threat but merely expressed his strong
sentiments to defend Mon. However, Judge Vargas retired
and was replaced by Judge Singh as acting presiding judge.
Judge Singh, in a resolution, dismissed the petition since the
rules of the writ of amparo was to apply solely to cases of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and
although the Motion to Dismiss the Petition is a prohibited
pleading, the Court has the discretion to dismiss when in
own determination not covered by the same rule. The
petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but denied for
lack of merit. Hence, this petition.

Issue/s:

WON the RTC erred in dismissing the writ of Amparo

petition.

Ruling:

No. The RTC did not err in dismissing the writ of Amparo
petition.

The petition before the RTC does not allege any case of
extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, or any
threats thereof. Their petition is merely anchored on a
broad invocation of respondent’s purported violation

Case No. 78 | Writ of Amparo

Case No. 79 | Writ of Amparo