Montilla (1H)

Law 100, Prof Vargas

DETAILS

Case Title Ilusorio v Bildner

Docket Number G.R. No. 139789.

Ponencia, SC Division Pardo, J.

Date May 12, 2000

Topic (Syllabus) Obligation to live with the other spouse

[REQUIRED] Case Facts: Erlinda Bildner filed with the CA a petition for habeas corpus to have the
Summary (For recit) custody of her husband Potenciano alleging that respondent refused petitioner’s
demands to see and visit her husband.

The CA allowed visitation rights to Erlinda for humanitarian consideration but

denied the petition for habeas corpus for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of
the subject of the petition. Erlinda seeks to reverse the CA decision dismissing
the application for habeas corpus to have the custody of her husband and
enforce consortium as the wife.

Potenciano seeks to annul that portion of the CA decision giving Erlinda

visitation rights.

Issue: May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live
with her in their conjugal dwelling.

Held: No. Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may
not be enforced by the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus.

DOCTRINE/LEGAL BASIS

● ART. 69 Family Code

o The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall
decide.
● Writ of Habeas Corpus
o 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."
o 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.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. (see Ilusorio’s petition) 1. (see Bildner’s petition)

FACTS

● Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio.

 Montilla (1H)
Law 100, Prof Vargas

● 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.
● 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 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.
● 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 and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City.
● CA ordered
o visitation rights to see Potenciano
o writ of habeas corpus - denied
● Petitions at hand
o Erlinda K. Ilusorio: to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution
dismissing the application for habeas corpus to have the custody of her husband, lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio and enforce consortium as the wife.
o Potenciano Ilusorio: is to annul that portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals giving
Erlinda K. Ilusorio visitation rights to her husband and to enjoin Erlinda and the Court of
Appeals from enforcing the visitation rights.

ISSUE #1 - W/N a wife can secure a writ of RULING: NO

habeas corpus to compel her husband to
live with her in conjugal bliss

RATIO

Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the
extraordinary 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 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.

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.

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.
 Montilla (1H)
Law 100, Prof Vargas

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.

DISPOSITIVE

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

Please do not forget to save in this format:

[Class] - [Case Title] (Docket) - Surname
LAW 100 - Petitioner v. Respondent (G.R. No. 12345) - Reyes