ARTICLE 68

ILUSORIO VS BILDNER (GR 139789)

FACTS:

This is the story of Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio. These two got married on 1942 but in
1972 they got separated from bed and board, that is the spouses may legally live apart but they
are still legally married.

On March 1999, Erlinda K. Ilusorio, herein petitioner, filed a petition with the Court of Appeals
for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband, Atty. Potenciano Ilusorio. This is based on
the contention that Erlinda Bildner and Sylvia Yap, respondents and the daughters of Erlinda and
Potenciano, refused the demand of their mother Erlinda, to see and visit her husband and
prohibited Potenciano, the father of the respondents and the husband of the petitioner, from
returning to Antipolo City where the petitioner lives. The CA dismissed the petition for habeas
corpus for lack of merit. The Supreme Court (SC) also favored the decision of the CA upon
appeal of of Erlinda Ilusorio (GR 139808).

Erlinda Ilusorio then filed to the SC a motion to reconsider the decision. One of the issues raised
by the petitioner is that Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code support her position that as
spouses, they (Potenciano and Erlinda) are duty bound to live together and care for each other.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners motion for reconsideration be considered

HELD:

The SC held that no, Erlindas motion for reconsideration is denied. On the contention of Article
68 & 69, the SC agrees that the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity. The SC however emphasized that to enforce consortium, it should be
the spontaneity and mutual affection between husband and wife, and not by any legal mandate
or court order. In the decision set by the Supreme Court in GR 139808, no court is empowered
as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife. In addition, this case has been
rendered moot by the death of subject, Atty. Potenciano Ilusorio.