Scribd
Upload
120 views1 page

Illusorio Case

Erlinda filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to gain custody of her husband Potenciano and enforce her right to consortium as his wife. However, the court found that marital rights like coverture and living together cannot be enforced through habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals also dismissed Erlinda's petition, finding that Potenciano was of sound mind and had made it clear he did not want to live with Erlinda or prevent her from visiting. As Potenciano had full mental capacity and freedom of choice, the court could not override his choice or deprive him of his rights to privacy and free choice of residence and visitors.

Uploaded by

Ayra Arcilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
120 views1 page

Illusorio Case

Erlinda filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to gain custody of her husband Potenciano and enforce her right to consortium as his wife. However, the court found that marital rights like coverture and living together cannot be enforced through habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals also dismissed Erlinda's petition, finding that Potenciano was of sound mind and had made it clear he did not want to live with Erlinda or prevent her from visiting. As Potenciano had full mental capacity and freedom of choice, the court could not override his choice or deprive him of his rights to privacy and free choice of residence and visitors.

Uploaded by

Ayra Arcilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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.

Ponente: PARDO, J.:

Case Doctrine:

Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the
extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus. No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a
husband to live with his wife.

Facts:
Erlinda and Potenciano was married for 30 years with 6 children. The children alleged that Erlinda
overdosed Potenciano as a result leaving his health deteriorated. Erlinda filed for guardianship
over the person and the property of Potenciano due to the latter’s advanced age, frail health,
poor eyesight and impaired judgment. CA granted visitation rights. Erlinda Ilusorio filed a petition
to reverse the decision of the CA in dismissing the application for habeas corpus to have the
custody of her husband, Potenciano and enforce consortium as the wife. Potenciano filed a
petition to annul the decision of the CA giving Erlinda visitation rights to her husband and enjoin
Erlinda from enforcing visitation rights.

Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in dismissing Erlinda’s petition of habeas corpus?

Held: No.

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. 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.

You might also like