CASE NAME: ILUSORIO VS. BILDNER freedom of action.

The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and

G.R NO.139789| 12 MAY 2000| ISABEL FRIA
Topic: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
FACTS:
 Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer, is about 86 years of age possessed of
extensive property valued at millions of pesos. For many years, he was
Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country Club. In 1942,
he married Erlinda Kalaw. They lived together for 30 years and begotten
6 children.
 In 1972, they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons.
Potenciano lived in Makati everytime he was in Manila and at Ilusorio
Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio City. Erlinda, on
the other hand, lived in Antipolo City.
 In 1997, upon Potenciano’s arrival from US, he stayed with Erlina for
about 5 months in Antipolo City. the Children, Sylvia and Erlinda Bildner,
alleged that during this time, Erlina Kalaw gave Potenciano an overdose
of 200 mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft, and anti-depressant drug
prescribed by his doctor. As a consequence, Potenciano’s heart
deteriorated.
 Erlinda filed with the RTC a petition for guardianship over the person
and property of Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latters advanced age,
frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment
 in 1998, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano
did not return to Antipolo City but instead, lived in his condominium in
Makati. Erlinda filed with CA a petition for habeas corpus to have the
custody of Potenciano alleging that respondents refused her demands
to see and visit him and prohibited him from returning to Antipolo City.
 CA: allowed visitation rights to Erlinda for humanitarian consideration
but denied the petition for habeas corpus.
effective, not merely nominal or moral.
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 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.
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 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.

ISSUE: WON a wife may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her
husband to live with her in their conjugal dwelling
HELD: NO. 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. To justify the grant of the petition,
the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of