Ilusorio vs Bildner

G.R. No. 139789 | May 12, 2000

J. Pardo

Facts:

Erlinda is the wife of lawyer Potenciano, who is about 86 years of age possessed of extensive
property. They lived together for a period of thirty years. Thereafter, they separated from bed and
board for undisclosed reasons. Potenciano lived in a Condominium in Makati when he was in Manila and
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 children.

In December 1997, Potenciano stayed with Erlinda for five months in Antipolo City. The children
alleged that their mother overdosed Potenciano of an antidepressant drug and his health deteriorated.
Erlinda filed for guardianship over the person and property due to Potenciano’s deteriorating condition.

After attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano did not return to Antipolo City
and instead lived at Cleveland Condominium, Makati. Erlinda filed for habeas corpus to have the custody
of Potenciano. She alleged that respondents refused petitioner’s demands to see and visit her husband
and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City.

Issue:

Can a court issue an order to compel the husband to live together and observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity?

Held:

No, 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.