FIRST DIVISION
Ilusorio
[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.
[G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000.]
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I.
BILDNER, and SYLVIA ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO,
respondents.
DECISION
PARDO, J p:
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. LLjur
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
"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.
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:
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.
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; . . .
"(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
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. LibLex
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.
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. LLjur
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-
Santiago, JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Ordoez vs. Vinarao, 239 SCRA 114
(1994).
2. David vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 82
(1995).
3. Moran, Comments on the Rules of
Court, Vol. III, 1997 edition, p. 780, citing
Bouviers Law Dictionary.
4. Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA
677 (1995); Umil vs. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251
(1991); Arriba vs. People, 107 SCRA 191 (1981),
citing Chief Justice Marshall, Ex parte Watkins, 3
Pet. 193, 202 (1830)
5. Ortiz vs. Del Villar, 57 Phil. 19 (1932).
6. In G. R. No. 139789, filed on October
11, 1999, for certiorari under Rule 45, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rollo, pp. 10-26.
7. In CA-G.R. SP No. 51689, promulgated
on April 5, 1999, Rollo, pp. 29-38.
8. Issued on August 25, 1999, Rollo, pp.
40-43.
9. In G. R. No. 139808, filed on September
14, 1999, for certiorari as a Special Civil Action
under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rollo, pp. 3-35.
10. Guardianship Proceeding No. 99-757.
11. In G. R. No. 139789.
12. Rollo, pp. 29-37, Justice Ibay-Somera,
ponente, Justices Conchita Carpio Morales and
Bernardo P. Abesamis concurring.
13. Ordoez vs. Vinarao, supra, Note 1.
14. Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA
233 (1986).
15. Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778,
788 (1919).
16. Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, 252
SCRA 663 (1996).
17. Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
18. Zagala vs. Ilustre, 48 Phil. 282 (1925),
citing 29 C. J., sec. 13.
Copyright 1996 -2000 CD Techn
o l o g i e s A s i a, I n c.