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, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, respondents.

Actions; Habeas corpus; 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 devised as a speedy and effectual remedy to
relieve persons from unlawful restraint, as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.—As heretofore
stated, 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.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

170

170

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

Same; Same; The essential object and purpose of the writ of ha-beas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary
restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.—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.
Same; Same; Mental Incapacity; The fact that a person 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.—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.

Same; Same; Right to Privacy; A person of sound mind is possessed with the capacity to make choices, and even as the
choices he makes may not appeal to some of his family members these are choices which exclusively belong to him.—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.

Same; Same; Same; A person with full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice may not be the subject of
visitation rights against his free choice.—With his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, Potenciano
Ilusorio may not be the subject of

171

VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000

171

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

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.

Same; Same; Same; Husband and Wife; Marriage; 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.—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.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—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.

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Singson, Valdez & Associates for E. Ilusorio.

     Roxas, Delos Reyes, Laurel & Rosario for P. Ilusorio.

     Agcaoili Law Offices for Sylvia K. Ilusorio-Yap.

     Roco, Bunag, Kapunan & Migallos and Lino M. Patajo for E. Bildner.

172

172

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

PARDO, J.: Ilusorio vs. Bildner, 332 SCRA 169, G.R. No. 139789, G.R. No. 139808 May 12, 2000
 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.

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, or by which the rightful custody of a
1 

person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. Slx

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. It is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented
4 

from exercising legal custody over another person. 5

The petition of Erlinda K. Ilusorio is to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution dismissing the
6  7  8 

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 is to annul that portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals
9 

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 Potenciano’s 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, Potenciano’s health deteriorated.

On February 25, 1998, Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City a petition for guardianship over the
10 

person and property of Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latter’s 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 refused petitioner’s demands to see and visit her husband
11 

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 petitioner’s manifestation, respondents Erlinda K. Ilusorio
Bildner and Sylvia Ilusorio-Yap, the administrator of Cleveland Condominium or anywhere in its place, his guards
and Potenciano Ilusorio’s staff especially Ms. Aurora Montemayor to allow visitation rights to Potenciano Ilusorio’s
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, or by which
13 

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
14 

the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. Jksmä â Ó

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. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral.
17  18

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.

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 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.

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. Esä 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 subject’s 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 woman’s 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

Ordoñez vs. Vinarao, 239 SCRA 114 (1994)

1 

David vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 82 (1995)

2 

Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III, 1997 edition, p. 780, citing Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.
3 

Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677 (1995); Umil vs. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991); Arriba vs. People,
4 

107 SCRA 191 (1981), citing Chief Justice Marshall, Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 202 (1830)

Ortiz vs. Del Villar, 57 Phil. 19 (1932)

5 

In G. R. No. 139789, filed on October 11, 1999, for certiorari under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rollo,
6 

pp. 10-26.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 51689, promulgated on April 5, 1999, Rollo, pp. 29-38.

7 

Issued on August 25, 1999, Rollo, pp. 40-43.

8 

In G. R. No. 139808, filed on September 14, 1999, for certiorari as a Special Civil Action under Rule 65, 1997 Rules
9 

of Civil Procedure, Rollo, pp. 3-35.

10 
Guardianship Proceeding No. 99-757.

11 
In G. R. No. 139789.

Rollo, pp. 29-37, Justice Ibay-Somera, ponente, Justices Conchita Carpio Morales and Bernardo P. Abesamis
12 

concurring.

13 
Ordoñez 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.