Ilusorio vs.

Bildner
GR No. 139789, May 12, 2000

FACTS:

Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer, 86 year old of age, possessed extensive property valued at millions of pesos. For many
year, he was the Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country Club. He was married with Erlinda Ilusorio,
herein petitioner, for 30 years and begotten 6 children namely Ramon, Lin Illusorio-Bildner (defendant), Maximo,
Sylvia, Marietta and Shereen. They separated from bed and board in 1972. Potenciano lived at Makati every time he
was in Manila and at Illusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio City. On the other hand, the
petitioner lived in Antipolo City.

In 1997, upon Potenciano’s arrival from US, he stayed with her wife for about 5 months in Antipolo city. The children,
Sylvia and Lin, alleged that during this time their mother overdose Potenciano which caused the latter’s health to
deteriorate. In February 1998, Erlinda filed with RTC petition for guardianship over the person and property of
Potenciano due to the latter’s advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment. In May 1998, after
attending a corporate meeting in Baguio, Potenciano did not return to Antipolo instead lived at Cleveland
Condominium in Makati. In March 1999, petitioner filed with CA petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of his
husband alleging that the respondents refused her demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano
from returning to Antipolo.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioned writ of habeas corpus should be issued.

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 the one entitled thereto. To justify the grant for such petition, the restraint of liberty must an
illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective not
merely nominal or moral.

Evidence showed that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of Potenciano’s liberty that would
justify issuance of the writ. The fact that the latter was 86 years of age and under medication does not necessarily
render him mentally incapacitated. He still has the capacity to discern his actions. With his full mental capacity having
the right of choice, he may not be the subject of visitation rights against his free choice. Otherwise, he will be deprived
of his right to privacy.

The case at bar does not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In
any event, that the husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat or any
penalty attached to the exercise of his right. Coverture, is a matter beyond judicial authority and cannot be enforced
by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by the sheriffs or by any other process.

Ilusorio vs. Bildner

G.R. No. 139789 May 12, 2000
Facts: Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio contracted matrimony and lived together for a period of thirty years. Out
of their marriage, the spouses had six children. In 1972, they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons.
Potenciano lived in Makati when he was in Manila and in Ilusorio penthouse when he was in Baguio City. On the other
hand, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.

When Potenciano arrived from United States and lived with Erlinda in Antipolo City for five months. The children,
Sylvia and Lin, alleged that their mother overdosed their father with an antidepressant drug which the latter’s health
deteriorated. Erlinda filed with RTC of Antipolo City a petition for guardianship over the person and property of her
husband due to the latter’s advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment.

Potenciano did not return to Antipolo City and instead lived in a condominium in Makati City after attending a corporate
meeting in Baguio City. With these, Erlinda filed with CA a petition for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband
and also for the reason that respondent refused petitioner’s demands to see and visit her husband and prohibiting
Potenciano from living with her in Antipolo City.

Issue: Whether or not Erlinda Ilusorio may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in
conjugal bliss.

Ruling: 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.

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. Therefore, a petition for writ of habeas
corpus is denied.