FIRST DIVISION
[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. Mesm
[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.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus
to compel her husband to live with her in conjugal bliss? The answer is no.
Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not be
enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus.
A writ of habeas corpus extends to
all cases of illegal confinement or detention,[1] or by which the rightful custody of a person is
withheld from the one entitled thereto.[2] Slx
"Habeas corpus is 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."[3]
It is a high prerogative, common-law writ,
of ancient origin, the great object of which is the liberation of those who may
be imprisoned without sufficient cause.[4] It is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is
wrongfully prevented from exercising legal custody over another person.[5]
The petition of Erlinda K. Ilusorio[6] is to reverse the decision[7] of the Court of Appeals and its resolution[8] dismissing the application for habeas corpus to
have the custody of her husband, lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio and enforce
consortium as the wife.
On the other hand, the petition of
Potenciano Ilusorio[9] 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.
The undisputed facts are as follows: Scslx
Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio.
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age
possessed of extensive property valued at millions of pesos. For many years,
lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio was Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio
Country Club.
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 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[10] 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. Slxsc
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[11] refused petitioner’s demands to see and visit her
husband 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 of refusal thereof; xxx
"(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]
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,[13] 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.[14] 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.[15] Jksmä â Ó
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]
To justify the grant of the petition, the
restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom
of action.[17] The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and
effective, not merely nominal or moral.[18]
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.
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. Esä m
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 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 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.
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.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur. 5/31/00 10:02 AM
[1] Ordoñez vs. Vinarao, 239 SCRA 114 (1994)
[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.
[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 parte Watkins, 3 Pet.
193, 202 (1830)
[5] Ortiz vs. Del Villar, 57 Phil. 19 (1932)
[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.
[7] In CA-G.R. SP No. 51689, promulgated on April 5,
1999, Rollo, pp. 29-38.
[8] Issued on August 25, 1999, Rollo, pp. 40-43.
[9] In G. R. No. 139808, filed on September 14, 1999, for
certiorari as a Special Civil Action under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rollo, pp. 3-35.
[10] Guardianship Proceeding No. 99-757.
[11] In G. R. No. 139789.
[12] Rollo, pp. 29-37, Justice Ibay-Somera, ponente,
Justices Conchita Carpio Morales and Bernardo P. Abesamis concurring.
[13] Ordoñez vs. Vinarao, supra, Note 1.
[14] Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986)
[15] Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 788
(1919)
[16] Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 663
(1996)
[17] Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
[18] Zagala vs. Ilustre, 48 Phil. 282 (1925),
citing 29 C. J., sec. 13.