Case Summary (G.R. No. 139789)
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
- Rule on Habeas Corpus (Rule 102, Rules of Court)
- Jurisprudence defining “illegal confinement” and lawful custody (e.g., Ordoñez v. Vinarao; David v. CA)
Scope of Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy aimed strictly at unlawful confinement or detention or wrongful withholding of custody. It may not be used to enforce marital rights or conjugal consortium.
Facts of Separation and Living Arrangements
The spouses lived together for thirty years before legally separating in 1972. Since then, Potenciano divided his time between Makati and Baguio residences while Erlinda resided in Antipolo. In late 1997, he stayed with her for five months; his health allegedly deteriorated due to an overdose of prescribed medication.
Procedural History and Lower Court Decisions
Erlinda sought guardianship over her husband’s person and property in February 1998. When Potenciano relocated to Cleveland Condominium in May 1998 and resisted returning to Antipolo, she petitioned the Court of Appeals for habeas corpus in March 1999. The CA issued the writ, then denied it for lack of unlawful restraint but, sua sponte, granted visitation rights under penalty of contempt. Both spouses filed certiorari petitions before the Supreme Court challenging those rulings.
Nature and Requirements of Habeas Corpus
To warrant relief, the petitioner must demonstrate actual and effective deprivation of personal liberty or custody, not merely moral or nominal restraint. The remedy presupposes involuntary and illegal detention of the subject or wrongful denial of custody to one entitled thereto.
Absence of Unlawful Restraint
The Court found no evidence that Potenciano was confined or prevented from leaving his residence, nor that he objected to visits from his wife and children. His advanced age and medication did not equate to mental incapacity or involuntary restraint. He was of sound mind, consented to his living arrangements, and retained full autonomy.
Mental Capacity and Right of Choice
Soundness of mind is assessed by the individual’s capacity to understand and decide, not by age or medical condition alone. Potenciano was lucid at hearings and expressly acknowledged his freedom to choose where to live and whom to see. His decisions, though unpalatable to family members, were constitutionally protected as personal choices.
Improper Grant of Visitati
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 139789)
Procedural Posture and Consolidation
- Two separate petitions filed before the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 139789 by Erlinda K. Ilusorio under Rule 45 seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of her habeas corpus application; and G.R. No. 139808 by Potenciano Ilusorio under Rule 65 seeking annulment of the Court of Appeals’ grant of visitation rights to his wife.
- Both petitions were consolidated for joint decision by the First Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Court of Appeals had on April 5, 1999 (CA‐G.R. SP No. 51689), denied the habeas corpus petition for lack of unlawful restraint but nonetheless ordered visitation rights in favor of Erlinda K. Ilusorio.
Parties and Background
- Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio (wife and petitioner in G.R. No. 139789) and lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio (husband and petitioner in G.R. No. 139808) were married on July 11, 1942.
- The Ilusorios lived together for thirty years before separating in 1972; Erlinda thereafter resided in Antipolo City while Potenciano divided his time between residences in Makati City and Baguio City.
- The couple had six children: Ramon (55), Erlinda “Lin” Bildner (52), Maximo (50), Sylvia (49), Marietta (48), and Shereen (39).
- Potenciano, approximately 86 years old and owner of extensive property holdings, formerly served as Chairman and President of Baguio Country Club.
Material Facts
- December 30, 1997: Potenciano returned from the United States and lived with Erlinda in Antipolo City for about five months.
- During this stay, children Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin) alleged that their mother administered an overdose of 200 mg Zoloft instead of the prescribed 100 mg, causing deterioration of Potenciano’s health.
- February 25, 1998: Erlinda filed a guardianship petition in the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City over the person and property of Potenciano, citing his advanced age and frail health.
- May 31, 1998: After attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano chose to reside at the Cleveland Condominium in Makati rather than