Ilusorio vs.

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

Facts: Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio contracted matrimony and lived together for a period of thirty years. Out
of their marriage, the spouses had six children. In 1972, they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons.
Potenciano lived in Makati when he was in Manila and in Ilusorio penthouse when he was in Baguio City. On the other
hand, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.

When Potenciano arrived from United States and lived with Erlinda in Antipolo City for five months. The children,
Sylvia and Lin, alleged that their mother overdosed their father with an antidepressant drug which the latter’s health
deteriorated. Erlinda filed with RTC of Antipolo City a petition for guardianship over the person and property of her
husband due to the latter’s advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment.

Potenciano did not return to Antipolo City and instead lived in a condominium in Makati City after attending a corporate
meeting in Baguio City. With these, Erlinda filed with CA a petition for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband
and also for the reason that respondent refused petitioner’s demands to see and visit her husband and prohibiting
Potenciano from living with her in Antipolo City.

Issue: Whether or not Erlinda Ilusorio may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in
conjugal bliss.

Ruling: 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. 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.

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. Therefore, a petition for writ of habeas
corpus is denied.