Erlina Ilusorio vs.
Erlinda Bildner and Sylvia Ilusorio, John Doe and Jane Doe
G.R No. 139789. May 12, 2000
Gr. No. 139808. May 12 2000
Pardo, J:
By: Christine Joyce S. Mendoza
Summary:
Potenciano and Erlinda was married but separated by bed and board. But lived together for 5
months after going home from NYC, US. Due to old age and deteriorating health, Erlinda, the
wife, filed for guardianship, then after Potenciano’s corporate meeting in Makati, he did not
return in Antipolo where his wife is living, which prompt her to file a petition for Habeas Corpus,
which was denied by CA and affirmed by the SC and held that the evidence showed that there
was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio's liberty that
would justify the issuance of the writ.
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. 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.
Facts:
Erlinda Kalaw is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio.
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age possessed an extensive property valued at millions
of pesos. For many years, he was the Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country
Club
On July of 1942, Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano contracted marriage and lived together for a
period of 30 years, then in 1972, they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons.
Potenciano lived at Uradaneta Condominuumm, Ayala Ave., when he was in Manila and at
Ilusorio Penthouse in Baguio Country Club. While Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.
Out of their marriage, the spouses had six (6) children, 2 of them are the herein respondents.
(Sylvia and Erlinda)
On Dec. 1997, upon Potenciano’s arrival from the US, he stayed with Erlinda for about 5 months
in Antipolo City. Their children, Slyvia and Erlinda, alleged that during this time, their mother gave
Potenciano an overdose of 200mg instead of 100mg Zoloft, an antidepressant drug prescribed
by his doctor in New York. As a consequence, Potenciano’s health deteriorated.
On Feb 1998, Erlinda then petition for guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano
Ilusorio due to the latter’s advanced age, frail health, poor eye sight and impaired judgment.
On May 31 1998, after attending a corporate meeting, Potenciano did not return to Antipolo
City and instead lived at Cleveland Condo in Makati.
On March 1999, Erlinda filed with the CA 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.
The CA denied the petition for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the subject of the
petition.
Hence, the two petitions, which were consolidated and are herein jointly decided.
Issue: WON the Petition for Habeas Corpus is proper?
Held:
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 one entitled thereto.
It is available when 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 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 restrain is illegal.
To justify the grant of the petition, the restrain 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.
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 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.
CA observed that he did not request the administrator of the Cleveland Condominium not to
allow his wife and other children from seeing or visiting him. CA also states that he was sound
and alert mind, having answered all the relevant questions to the satisfaction of the court.
Potenciano made it clear the he was not prevented from leaving his house or seeing people.
With that declaration, and absent of any restraing on his liberty, the SC have no reason to
reverse the finding of the CA.
However, the CA exceeded it’s authority when it awarded visitation rights in a petition for
Habeas Corpus where Erlinda never even prayed for such 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 means process. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the
man and woman’s free choice.
