Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

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.

Singson Valdez & Associates for E. Ilusorio.

Roxas Delos Reyes Laurel & Rosario for P. Ilusorio.
Agcaoili Law Offices for S. Ilusorio-Yap.
Roco Bunag Kapunan & Migallos and Lito M. Patajo for E. Bildner.
SYNOPSIS
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age who possessed extensive property
valued millions of pesos. He is married to Erlinda Kalaw. In 1972, they separated
from bed and board for undisclosed reasons. Potenciano lived at Urdaneta
Condominium, Makati City when he is in Manila, and at Ilusorio Penthouse, Baguio
Country Club when he is in Baguio City, while Erlinda lived in Antipolo City. On
December 30, 1997, upon Potenciano's arrival from the United States, he stayed
with Erlinda in Antipolo City for about five months. During that period, his health
deteriorated allegedly because of an overdose of medicine that was given to him by
Erlinda. On May 31, 1998, from Baguio City, Potenciano did not return to Antipolo
City. Instead he lived at Cleveland Condominium, Makati City. Consequently, Erlinda
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of
Potenciano. After due hearing, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, but
Erlinda was given visitation rights. Both parties elevated the case to this Court.
Erlinda sought the reversal of the dismissal of her petition, while Potenciano wanted
to annul the visitation rights of Erlinda.
This Court ruled that the evidence showed that there was no actual and effective
detention or deprivation of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio's 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. In this case, the crucial choices revolve on his
residence and the people he opts to see or live with. 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, he will be deprived of his right to
privacy. Needless to say, this will run against his fundamental constitutional right.
Finally, 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 woman's free choice.
TAIESD
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; HABEAS CORPUS; COULD NOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST
MARITAL RIGHTS. Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling
may not be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus. . . . 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 woman's free choice.
2. ID.; ID.; COVERAGE. 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.
3. ID.; ID.; DEFINED. "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." 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.
It is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented from
exercising legal custody over another person.
4. ID.; ID.; SPEEDY AND EFFECTUAL REMEDY TO RELIEVE PERSONS FROM
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. 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. 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. 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.
5. ID.; ID.; PURPOSE. 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.
6. ID.; ID.; TO JUSTIFY THE GRANT THEREOF, ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY
MUST BE ACTUAL AND EFFECTIVE. 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.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. The evidence shows that there
was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio's
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. . . . As to
lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio's 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.
8. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARITAL RIGHTS; AWARD OF VISITATION RIGHTS TO
A WIFE IS A VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF A SANE HUSBAND. 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. The ruling is not consistent with the finding of subject's sanity. HDATCc
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY OF CONTEMPT IS NOT PROPER. 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.
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. Ilusorio6 is to reverse the decision7 of the Court of Appeals and its
resolution8dismissing 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 Ilusorio9 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