ILUSORIO V.
BILDNER Hence, the herein petitions: first, by Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio, praying for the
G.R. No. 139789 + 139808 (orig GR in the syllabus is the resolution which doesnt
say anything)/ MAY 12, 2000 / PARDO, J./Habeas Corpus/ECPPOTIAN
NATURE Petition for writ of habeas corpus
PETITIONERS Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio / Potenciano Ilusorio, Ma. Erlinda I. Bildner &
Sylvia Ilusorio
RESPONDENTS Erlinda I. Bildner, Sylvia Ilusorio, et al / CA & Erlinda K. Ilusorio
SUMMARY. #FirstWorldFamilyDrama #ZoloftTM Spouses Potenciano and Erlinda
Ilusorio separated after 30 years of marriage. He lived in Makati, while she lived in
Antipolo. However, after a trip to the US, he lived with her for 5 months, during
which time, his health deteriorated. Their kids allege that Elinda overdosed her
husband with Zoloft. She then filed a petition for guardianship over him. After a trip
out of town, Potenciano did not return to Antipolo and remained in Makati. Erlinda
then petitioned for the writ of habeas corpus. The CA denied the writ, and the SC
held that the writ is directed against illegal detention, and its purpose is
to liberate those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. The
illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effectivean element not present in
Potencianos case. The CA also granted visitation rights, which the SC struck down
for being inconsistent with the finding that Potenciano was of sound mind and full
mental capacity. He cannot be subject of visitation rights against his free will. In any
case, Erlinda had never even prayed for visitation rights.
DOCTRINE. The writ of habeas corpus will be issued only if there is an actual and
effective illegal restraint of liberty
FACTS
Petitioner Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio and lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio married in
1942.
Potenciano owned extensive property and was Chairman of the Board and
President of the Baguio Country Club for many years. He died in at the age
of 86 in 2001, a year after this decision. His estimated net worth was P2
billion.
After living together for 30 yearsa union that bore 6 childrenthey
separated in 1972 for undisclosed reasons.
Kids: Ramon Ilusorio (age 55); Erlinda Ilusorio Bildner (age 52); Maximo
(age 50); Sylvia (age 49); Marietta (age 48); and Shereen (age 39).
Potenciano split his time between Makati and Baguio, while Erlinda lived in
Antipolo. Potenciano later left for the United States, and upon his return in
1997, stayed with Erlinda in Antipolo for 5 months.
Their children allege that during this time, Erlinda gave Potenciano an
overdose of 200mg of Zoloft(!!!), an anti-depressant drug prescribed by the
latters doctor in New York, instead of the recommended 100mg dose.
Potencianos health consequently deteriorated. Erlinda then filed a petition
for guardianship over Potencianos person and property, due to his
advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight, and impaired judgment. (Not
stated in the case whether the guardianship was granted.)
After a corporate meeting in Baguio, Potenciano no longer returned to
Antipolo and instead lived in his condominium in Makati.
Erlinda thus filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for habeas
corpus, to have custody over her husband.
She alleged that respondents, their children, refused her demands to visit
her husband and likewise prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo.
CA: denied the petition for habeas corpus, but ordered that
visitation rights be allowed to Erlinda.
grant of the writ of habeas corpus, and second, by her daughter Erlinda
Ilusorio Bildner, to annul the portion of the CA decision granting visitation
rights.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON the CA had authority to grant visitation rights.NO. Erlinda never
even prayed for visitation rights, and it is inconsistent with the
finding that Potenciano is of sound mind.
The CA exceeded its authority when it awarded visitation rights.
Potenciano was able to establish before the CA that he was of sound and
alert mind, having answered all relevant questions to the courts satisfaction. He
made it clear before the court that he was not prevented from leaving his house or
from seeing people.
Given his full mental capacity and his right of choice, Potenciano may not
be the subject of visitation rights against his free will. The CA exceeded its
authority in granting visitation rights in the petition for habeas corpus,
especially since Erlinda never even prayed for such right. Neither is the
grant of such rights consistent with the finding that Potenciano is sane.
Further, the CA stated that visitation rights should be enforced under penalty of
contempt, in case of violation or refusal to comply. This assertion of power is
unnecessary. The case does 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 penalty.
2. [MAIN] WON the writ of habeas corpus may be granted to a married person,
in order to compel her spouse to live with her in conjugal bliss.NO. The
writ is directed to a person detaining another to produce the body
of the prisoner.
A writ of habeas corpus extends to cases of illegal confinement or
detention. Potenciano was neither illegally detained nor confined.
The writ of habeas corpus is directed to a person detaining another, commanding
him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the
day and cause of capture and detention. The purpose of the writ is to liberate
those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. It is intended to
inquire into all manner of voluntary restraint, and to relieve a person
therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
Hence, to justify the grant of the writ, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal
and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The illegal restraint must be
actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral.
In this case, however, there was no actual and effective detention or
deprivation of Potencianos liberty to justify issuance of the writ. The fact
that he is 86 years old or under medication does not necessarily render him
mentally incapacitated. Soundness of mind does not depend on age or medical
condition, but on the individuals capacity to discern his actions.
The Court upheld the CAs conclusion that there was no unlawful restraint on
Potentianos liberty.
Regardless, Potenciano made it clear before the CA that he never requested the
condominium administration to prohibit his wife and other children from seeing or
visiting him.
The petition for habeas corpus is thus dismissed, and the petition to annul the CA
decision with regard to visitation rights is granted.
DECISION.
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.