63. Ilusorio vs.
Ilusorio – Bildner incapacitated; Soundness of mind does not hinge on age or medical condition
G.R. No. 139789. May 12, 2000. * but on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions.—The evidence shows
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
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
Page 1 of 5
under penalty of contempt in case of violation or refusal to comply. Such and place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, submit
assertion of raw, naked power is unnecessary. The Court of Appeals missed the to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider
fact that the case did not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but in that behalf.” 3

the right of a wife to visit a husband. In case the husband refuses to see his wife It is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of ancient origin, the great
for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat of any penalty attached object of which is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without
to the exercise of his right. sufficient cause.  It is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully
4

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; No court is empowered as a judicial prevented from exercising legal custody over another person. 5

authority to compel a husband to live with his wife; Coverture cannot be The petition of Erlinda K. Ilusorio  is to reverse the decision  of the Court
6 7

enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by sheriffs or by

of Appeals and its resolution  dismissing the
8

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 1
 Ordoñez vs. Vinarao, 239 SCRA 114 (1994).
man and woman’s free choice.
2
 David vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 82 (1995).
3
 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III, 1997 edition, p. 780, citing Bouvier’s
Law Dictionary.
PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. 4
 Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677 (1995); Umil vs. Ramos, 202 SCRA
251 (1991); Arriba vs. People, 107 SCRA 191 (1981), citing Chief Justice Marshall, Ex
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 202 (1830).
     Singson, Valdez & Associates for E. Ilusorio. 5
 Ortiz vs. Del Villar, 57 Phil. 19 (1932).
     Roxas, Delos Reyes, Laurel & Rosario for P. Ilusorio. 6
 In G.R. No. 139789, filed on October 11, 1999, for certiorari under Rule 45, 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, Rollo, pp. 10-26.
     Agcaoili Law Offices for Sylvia K. Ilusorio-Yap. 7
 In CA-G.R. SP No. 51689, promulgated on April 5, 1999, Rollo, pp. 29-38.
     Roco, Bunag, Kapunan & Migallos and Lino M. Patajo for E. Bildner. 8
 Issued on August 25, 1999, Rollo, pp. 40-43.
172 173
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000 173
Ilusorio vs. Bildner Ilusorio vs. Bildner
application for habeas corpus to have the custody of her husband, lawyer
PARDO, J.:
Potenciano Ilusorio and enforce consortium as the wife.
On the other hand, the petition of Potenciano Ilusorio  is to annul that
9

May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with
portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals giving Erlinda K. Ilusorio
her in conjugal bliss? The answer is no. Marital rights including coverture
visitation rights to her husband and to enjoin Erlinda and the Court of
and living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the extra-ordinary
Appeals from enforcing the visitation rights.
writ of habeas corpus.
The undisputed facts are as follows:
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or
Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio.
detention,  or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the
1

Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age possessed of extensive

one entitled thereto.2

property valued at millions of pesos. For many years, lawyer Potenciano

“Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another,
Ilusorio was Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country Club.
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time

Page 2 of 5
 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 anti-
_______________
 In G.R. No. 139808, filed on September 14, 1999, for certiorari as a Special Civil Action
9
under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rollo, pp. 3-35.
174
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
depressant 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 person and property of
10
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.
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 or refusal thereof; x x x
“(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
_______________
 Guardianship Proceeding No. 99-757.
10
 In G.R. No. 139789.
11
 Rollo, pp. 29-37, Justice Ibay-Somera, ponente, Justices Conchita Carpio Morales and
12
Bernardo P. Abesamis concurring.
175
VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000 175
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
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 the rightful custody of a person is
13
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
14
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, as the best and
only sufficient defense of personal freedom. 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
Page 3 of 5
 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
17
of liberty must be actual and 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 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.
_______________
 Ordoñez vs. Vinarao, supra, Note 1.
13
 Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986).
14
 Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 788 (1919).
15
 Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 663 (1996).
16
 Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
17
 Zagala vs. Ilustre, 48 Phil. 282 (1925), citing 29 C.J., sec. 13.
18
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.
18
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.
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
177
VOL. 332, MAY 12, 2000 177
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
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

176
with his wife. Coverture cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
habeas corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is a
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man and woman’s free
The Court of Appeals also observed that lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio did not
choice.
request the administrator of the Cleveland Condominium not to allow his
WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 139789, the Court DISMISSES the petition
wife and other children from seeing or visiting him. He made it clear that he
for lack of merit. No costs. In G.R. No. 139808, the Court GRANTS the
did not object to seeing them.
petition and nullifies the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it gives
As to lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio’s mental state, the Court of Appeals
visitation rights to respondent Erlinda K. Ilusorio. No costs.
observed that he was of sound and alert mind, having answered all the
SO ORDERED.
relevant questions to the satisfaction of the court.
     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago,
Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the capacity to make
JJ., concur.
choices. In this case, the crucial choices revolve on his residence and the
Petition in G.R. No. 139789 dismissed, while in G.R. No. 139808 petition
people he opts to see or live with. The choices he made may not appeal to
granted.
some of his family members but these are choices which exclusively belong
Notes.—The writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a means of
to Potenciano. He made it clear before the Court of Appeals that he was not
obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person. (Subayno vs. Enrile, 145
prevented from leaving his house or seeing people. With that declaration, and
SCRA 282 [1996])
absent any true restraint on his liberty, we have no reason to reverse the
findings of the Court of Appeals.
Page 4 of 5
 The right to control the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of
data about oneself is called “informational privacy” while the right to make
personal decision or conduct personal activities without intrusion,
observation or interference is called “autonomy privacy.” (Ople vs.
Torres, 293 SCRA 241 [1998])

——o0o——

Page 5 of 5