FIRST DIVISION

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

ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and S L!IA K. ILUSORIO, "O#N DOE and "ANE DOE, respondents. Mesm
[G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000]

$O%EN&IANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, and S L!IA ILUSORIO, petitioners, vs. &OUR% O' A$$EALS and ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, respondents. DE&ISION
$ARDO, J.( May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in con u!al bliss" The answer is no# Marital ri!hts includin! coverture and livin! in con u!al dwellin! may not be enforced by the e$tra%ordinary writ of habeas corpus. & writ of habeas corpus e$tends to all cases of ille!al confinement or detention' )(* or by which the ri!htful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto# )+* Sl$
( +

"Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detainin! another' commandin! him to produce the body of the prisoner at a desi!nated time and place' with the day and cause of his capture and detention' to do' submit to' and receive whatsoever the court or ud!e awardin! the writ shall consider in that behalf#, )-*
-

It is a hi!h prero!ative' common%law writ' of ancient ori!in' the !reat ob ect of which is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause# ).* It is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is
.

1[1] Ordoez vs. Vinarao, 239 SCRA 114 (1994) 2[2] David vs. Court o A!!ea"#, 2$% SCRA &2 (199$) 3[3] 'oran, Co((ent# on t)e Ru"e# o Court, Vo". ***, 199+ edition, !. +&%, ,itin- .ouvier/# 0a1 Di,tionar2.

wron!fully prevented from e$ercisin! le!al custody over another person#

)/*

The petition of 0rlinda 1# Ilusorio )2* is to reverse the decision )3* of the 4ourt of &ppeals and its resolution )5* dismissin! the application for habeas corpus to have the custody of her husband' lawyer 6otenciano Ilusorio and enforce consortium as the wife#
2 3 5

On the other hand' the petition of 6otenciano Ilusorio )7* is to annul that portion of the decision of the 4ourt of &ppeals !ivin! 0rlinda 1# Ilusorio visitation ri!hts to her husband and to en oin 0rlinda and the 4ourt of &ppeals from enforcin! the visitation ri!hts#
7

The undisputed facts are as follows8 Scsl$ 0rlinda 1alaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer 6otenciano Ilusorio# 6otenciano Ilusorio is about 52 years of a!e possessed of e$tensive property valued at millions of pesos# For many years' lawyer 6otenciano Ilusorio was 4hairman of the 9oard and 6resident of 9a!uio 4ountry 4lub# On :uly ((' (7.+' 0rlinda 1alaw and 6otenciano Ilusorio contracted matrimony and lived to!ether for a period of thirty ;-<= years# In (73+' they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons# 6otenciano lived at >rdaneta 4ondominium' &yala &ve#' Ma?ati 4ity when he was in Manila and at Ilusorio 6enthouse' 9a!uio 4ountry 4lub when he was in 9a!uio 4ity# On the other hand' 0rlinda lived in &ntipolo 4ity#

4[4] Ve"a#,o vs. Court o A!!ea"#, 24$ SCRA 3++ (199$)4 5(i" vs. Ra(o#, 2%2 SCRA 2$1 (1991)4 Arri6a vs. 7eo!"e, 1%+ SCRA 191 (19&1), ,itin- C)ie 8u#ti,e 'ar#)a"", 9: !arte ;at<in#, 3 7et. 193, 2%2 (1&3%) $[$] Ortiz vs. De" Vi""ar, $+ 7)i". 19 (1932) 3[3] *n =. R. >o. 139+&9, i"ed on O,to6er 11, 1999, or certiorari under Ru"e 4$, 199+ Ru"e# o Civi" 7ro,edure, Rollo, !!. 1%?23. +[+] *n CA?=.R. S7 >o. $13&9, !ro(u"-ated on A!ri" $, 1999, Rollo, !!. 29?3&. &[&] *##ued on Au-u#t 2$, 1999, Rollo, !!. 4%?43. 9[9] *n =. R. >o. 139&%&, i"ed on Se!te(6er 14, 1999, or certiorari a# a S!e,ia" Civi" A,tion under Ru"e 3$, 199+ Ru"e# o Civi" 7ro,edure, Rollo, !!. 3? 3$.

Out of their marria!e' the spouses had si$ ;2= children' namely8 Ramon Ilusorio ;a!e //=@ 0rlinda Ilusorio 9ildner ;a!e /+=@ Ma$imo ;a!e /<=@ Sylvia ;a!e .7=@ Marietta ;a!e .5=@ and Shereen ;a!e -7=# On December -<' (773' upon 6otencianoAs arrival from the >nited States' he stayed with 0rlinda for about five ;/= months in &ntipolo 4ity# The children' Sylvia and 0rlinda ;Bin=' alle!ed that durin! this time' their mother !ave 6otenciano an overdose of +<< m! instead of (<< m! Coloft' an antidepressant dru! prescribed by his doctor in New Dor?' >#S#&# &s a conseEuence' 6otencianoAs health deteriorated# On February +/' (775' 0rlinda filed with the Re!ional Trial 4ourt' &ntipolo 4ity a petition )(<* for !uardianship over the person and property of 6otenciano Ilusorio due to the latterAs advanced a!e' frail health' poor eyesi!ht and impaired ud!ment#
(<

On May -(' (775' after attendin! a corporate meetin! in 9a!uio 4ity' 6otenciano Ilusorio did not return to &ntipolo 4ity and instead lived at 4leveland 4ondominium' Ma?ati# Sl$sc On March ((' (777' 0rlinda filed with the 4ourt of &ppeals a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of lawyer 6otenciano Ilusorio# She alle!ed that respondents )((* refused petitionerAs demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited 6otenciano from returnin! to &ntipolo 4ity#
((

&fter due hearin!' on &pril /' (777' the 4ourt of &ppeals rendered decision the dispositive portion of which reads8 ,FG0R0FOR0' in the li!ht of the fore!oin! disEuisitions' ud!ment is hereby rendered8 ,;(= Orderin!' for humanitarian consideration and upon petitionerAs manifestation' respondents 0rlinda 1# Ilusorio 9ildner and Sylvia Ilusorio%Dap' the administrator of 4leveland 4ondominium or anywhere in its place' his !uards and 6otenciano IlusorioAs staff especially Ms# &urora Montemayor to allow visitation ri!hts to 6otenciano IlusorioAs wife' 0rlinda Ilusorio and all her children' notwithstandin! any list limitin! visitors thereof' under penalty of contempt in case of violation of refusal thereof@ $$$ 1%[1%] =uardian#)i! 7ro,eedin- >o. 99?+$+. 11[11] *n =. R. >o. 139+&9.

,;+= ORD0RINH that the writ of habeas corpus previously issued be recalled and the herein petition for habeas corpus be D0NI0D D>0 4O>RS0' as it is hereby DISMISS0D for lac? of unlawful restraint or detention of the sub ect of the petition# ,SO ORD0R0D#,
(+

)(+*

Gence' the two petitions' which were consolidated and are herein ointly decided# &s heretofore stated' a writ of habeas corpus e$tends to all cases of ille!al confinement or detention' )(-* or by which the ri!htful 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 ori!inally 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# )(/* :?smI J K
((. (/

The essential ob ect and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inEuire into all manner of involuntary restraint' and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is ille!al# )(2*
(2

To ustify the !rant of the petition' the restraint of liberty must be an ille!al and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action# )(3* The ille!al restraint of liberty must be actual and effective' not merely nominal or moral# )(5*
(3 (5

12[12] Rollo, !!. 29?3+, 8u#ti,e *6a2?So(era, ponente, 8u#ti,e# Con,)ita Car!io 'ora"e# and .ernardo 7. A6e#a(i# ,on,urrin-. 13[13] Ordoez vs. Vinarao, supra, >ote 1. 14[14] 'on,u!a vs. 7on,e 9nri"e, 141 SCRA 233 (19&3) 1$[1$] Vi""avi,en,io vs. 0u<6an, 39 7)i". ++&, +&& (1919) 13[13] So(6on- vs. Court o A!!ea"#, 2$2 SCRA 333 (1993) 1+[1+] So(6on- vs. Court o A!!ea"#, supra. 1&[1&] @a-a"a vs. *"u#tre, 4& 7)i". 2&2 (192$), ,itin- 29 C. 8., #e,. 13.

The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer 6otenciano IlusorioAs liberty that would ustify the issuance of the writ# The fact that lawyer 6otenciano Ilusorio is about 52 years of a!e' or under medication does not necessarily render him mentally incapacitated# Soundness of mind does not hin!e on a!e or medical condition but on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions# &fter due hearin!' the 4ourt of &ppeals concluded that there was no unlawful restraint on his liberty# The 4ourt of &ppeals also observed that lawyer 6otenciano Ilusorio did not reEuest the administrator of the 4leveland 4ondominium not to allow his wife and other children from seein! or visitin! him# Ge made it clear that he did not ob ect to seein! them# &s to lawyer 6otenciano IlusorioAs mental state' the 4ourt of &ppeals observed that he was of sound and alert mind' havin! answered all the relevant Euestions to the satisfaction of the court# 9ein! of sound mind' he is thus possessed with the capacity to ma?e 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 e$clusively belon! to 6otenciano# Ge made it clear before the 4ourt of &ppeals that he was not prevented from leavin! his house or seein! people# Fith that declaration' and absent any true restraint on his liberty' we have no reason to reverse the findin!s of the 4ourt of &ppeals# Fith his full mental capacity coupled with the ri!ht of choice' 6otenciano Ilusorio may not be the sub ect of visitation ri!hts a!ainst his free choice# Otherwise' we will deprive him of his ri!ht to privacy# Needless to say' this will run a!ainst his fundamental constitutional ri!ht# 0sI m The 4ourt of &ppeals e$ceeded its authority when it awarded visitation ri!hts in a petition for habeas corpus where 0rlinda never even prayed for such ri!ht# The rulin! is not consistent with the findin! of sub ectAs sanity# Fhen the court ordered the !rant of visitation ri!hts' it also emphasiLed that the same shall be enforced under penalty of contempt in case of violation or refusal to comply# Such assertion of raw' na?ed power is unnecessary# The 4ourt of &ppeals missed the fact that the case did not involve the ri!ht of a parent to visit a minor child but the ri!ht 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 e$ercise of his ri!ht# No court is empowered as a udicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife# 4overture 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 udicial authority and is best left to the man and womanAs free choice# )#ERE'ORE, in H# R# No# (-7357' the 4ourt DISMISS0S the petition for lac? of merit# No costs# In H# R# No# (-75<5' the 4ourt HR&NTS the petition and nullifies the decision of the 4ourt of &ppeals insofar as it !ives visitation ri!hts to respondent 0rlinda 1# Ilusorio# No costs# SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santia o, JJ., concur# /M-(M<< (<8<+ &M