Civil Law Case Digest:
Potenciano vs Court of Appeals
[G.R. No. 139789 & 139808]
Facts:
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. They contracted their matrimony on July 11, 1942 and lived together for a period of 30yrs and blessed with six children but eventually separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons.
On 1997, upon Potenciano’s arrival from US, he then stayed at Erlinda’s place for about 5mos and during this time their children alleged that their mother gave Potenciano an overdose antidepressant which resulted Potenciano’s health to deteriorate.
Due to Potenciano’s condition, Erlinda petition for guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano in RTC Antipolo then elevated to CA and filed a petition of habeas corpus to have the custody of Potenciano.
CA rendered a decision of visitation rights to Potenciano’s wife and children, and dismissed the writ of habeas corpus for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the petition.
Issue:
Whether a wife can secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in conjugal bliss
Ruling:
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.
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. It is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented from exercising legal custody over another person.
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.
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. The soundness of mind does not hinge on age or medical condition but on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions.
The CA correctly concluded that there was no unlawful restraint on his liberty, and it observed that he was of sound mind and alert mind, having answered all the relevant questions to the satisfaction of the court. 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.
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.