Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ilusorio vs. Ilusorio-Bildner
Ilusorio vs. Ilusorio-Bildner
Ilusorio vs. Ilusorio-Bildner
361,JULY19,2001
427
G.R.No.139789.July19,2001.
G.R.No.139808.July19,2001.
Husband and Wife; The law provides that the husband and
the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and the sanction therefor is the spontaneous, mutual
affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or
court order to enforce consortium.ErlindastatesthatArticleXIIof
the 1987 Constitution and Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code
supportherpositionthatasspouses,
_________________
* FIRSTDIVISION.
428
428
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner
they(PotencianoandErlinda)aredutyboundtolivetogetherand
care for each other. We agree. The law provides that the husband
and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity. The sanction therefor is the spontaneous,
mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal
mandateorcourtordertoenforceconsortium.
Same; Words and Phrases; Empathy is defined as a shared
feeling between husband and wife experienced not only by having
spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual
communion.Obviously, there was absence of empathy between
spouses Erlinda and Potenciano, having separated from bed and
boardsince1972.Wedefinedempathyasasharedfeelingbetween
husband and wife experienced not only by having spontaneous
sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital
union is a twoway process. Marriage is definitely for two loving
adultswhoviewtherelationshipwithamor gignit amoremrespect,
sacrificeandacontinuingcommitmenttotogetherness,consciousof
itsvalueasasublimesocialinstitution.
MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONofadecisionofthe
SupremeCourt.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
Singson, Valdez & AssociatesforpetitionerE.Ilusorio.
VOL.361,JULY19,2001
429
(a) Todeterminetheproprietyofaphysicalandmedical
examinationofpetitionerPotencianoIlusorio;
(b) Whetherthesameisrelevant;and
9
(c) Ifrelevant,howtheCourtwillconductthesame.
___________________
1DocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.51689.
2DocketedasG.R.No.139789.
3G.R.No.139808.
4G.R.No.139789.
5G.R.No.139808.
6InCAG.R.SPNo.51689,promulgatedonApril5,1999.
7Decision,RolloofG.R.No.139808,pp.290A290J.
8PromulgatedonMay12,2000.
9RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.409.
430
430
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner
Thepartiesextensivelydiscussedtheissues.TheCourt,in
its resolution, enjoined the parties and their lawyers to
initiate steps towards an amicable settlement of the case
throughmediationandothermeans.
On November 29, 2000, the Court noted the
manifestation and compliance
of the parties with the
10
resolutionofOctober11,2000.
OnJanuary31,2001,theCourtdeniedErlindaIlusorios
manifestationandmotionprayingthatPotencianoIlusorio
beproducedbeforetheCourtandbemedicallyexaminedby
11
ateamofmedicalexpertsappointedbytheCourt.
On March 27, 2001, we denied with finality Erlindas
12
motiontoreconsidertheCourtsorderofJanuary31,2001.
TheissuesraisedbyErlindaK.Ilusorioinhermotionfor
reconsiderationaremerereiterationsofherargumentsthat
havebeenresolvedinthedecision.
Nevertheless, for emphasis, we shall discuss the issues
thus:
First. Erlinda K. Ilusorio claimed that she was not
compelling Potenciano to live with her in consortium and
that Potencianos mental state was not an issue. However,
the very root cause of the entire petition is her desire to
13
haveherhusbandscustody. Clearly,Erlindacannotnow
denythatshewantedPotencianoIlusoriotolivewithher.
Second. One reason why Erlinda K. Ilusorio sought
custody of her husband was that respondents Lin and
Sylvia were illegally restraining Potenciano Ilusorio to
fraudulently
deprive her of property rights out of pure
14
greed. Sheclaimedthathertwochildrenwereusingtheir
sickandfrailfathertosignawayPotencianoandErlindas
property to companies controlled by Lin and Sylvia. She
also argued that since Potenciano retired as director and
officer of Baguio Country Club and Philippine Oversees
Telecommunica
_________________
10RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.438.
11RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.453A.
12RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.596.
13RolloofG.R.No.139789,p.24.
14RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.311.
431
VOL.361,JULY19,2001
431
No.139789,pp.2938.
17 Omandam vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, 349 SCRA 483,
January18,2001.
18 Co vs. Court of Appeals, 317 Phil. 230, 238 [1995]; Gobonseng, Jr.
vs.CourtofAppeals,316Phil.570[1995].
19 Romago Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
SCRA 291, June 8, 2000; Halili vs. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 465
[1998];Bautistavs.MangaldanRuralBank,Inc.,230SCRA16[1994].
432
432
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner
Cuaderno,120Phil.1298[1964].
22Tsoivs.CourtofAppeals,supra,Note21.
433
VOL.361,JULY19,2001
433