Ilusorio vs Ilusorio-Bildner, G.R. 139789,May 12, 2000
Ilusorio vs Ilusorio-Bildner,
G.R. 139789,May 12, 2000
FACTS Petitioner Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio and respondent Potenciano Ilusorio were married in 1942 and had six children. They separated in 1972 and lived separately, with Potenciano staying in Makati and Baguio while Erlinda resided in Antipolo. In 1997, Potenciano stayed with Erlinda in Antipolo for five months after returning from the U.S. However, his children, Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin), alleged that he was given an overdose of Zoloft, which affected his health. In 1998, Erlinda filed for guardianship over Potenciano, citing his age and frail condition. In 1999, Erlinda filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that her children prevented her from seeing her husband and bringing him back to Antipolo. The Court of Appeals denied the habeas corpus petition but granted Erlinda visitation rights. Can a wife compel her husband to live with her through a writ of habeas corpus?
RULING NO because marital rights, including cohabitation, cannot be enforced through habeas corpus. Jurisprudence provides that because a writ of habeas corpus applies only in cases of illegal confinement or restraint. Marital cohabitation cannot be enforced through habeas corpus.
Here, Potenciano was not unlawfully detained and had the right to choose where to live and whom to associate with. Furthermore, The Court ruled that granting visitation rights was improper, as Potenciano was of sound mind and free will. The right to privacy and freedom of choice cannot be curtailed by forced visitation orders.Forcing him to see his wife would violate his right to privacy and personal autonomy. The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority in awarding visitation rights.