This case involves consolidated petitions filed by a wife (Erlinda) seeking to compel her husband (Potenciano) to live with her through a writ of habeas corpus, and the husband seeking to annul the appellate court's grant of visitation rights to the wife. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) marital rights like cohabitation cannot be enforced by habeas corpus, as courts cannot compel someone to live with their spouse; and (2) the appellate court exceeded its authority in granting visitation rights, as the husband was found to be of sound mind and entitled to privacy and choice in living arrangements.
This case involves consolidated petitions filed by a wife (Erlinda) seeking to compel her husband (Potenciano) to live with her through a writ of habeas corpus, and the husband seeking to annul the appellate court's grant of visitation rights to the wife. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) marital rights like cohabitation cannot be enforced by habeas corpus, as courts cannot compel someone to live with their spouse; and (2) the appellate court exceeded its authority in granting visitation rights, as the husband was found to be of sound mind and entitled to privacy and choice in living arrangements.
This case involves consolidated petitions filed by a wife (Erlinda) seeking to compel her husband (Potenciano) to live with her through a writ of habeas corpus, and the husband seeking to annul the appellate court's grant of visitation rights to the wife. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) marital rights like cohabitation cannot be enforced by habeas corpus, as courts cannot compel someone to live with their spouse; and (2) the appellate court exceeded its authority in granting visitation rights, as the husband was found to be of sound mind and entitled to privacy and choice in living arrangements.
G.R. No. 139789 1. Whether habeas corpus may be availed by Erlinda July 19, 2001 to compel Potenciano to live with her in conjugal bliss?
Facts: 2. How about the issue of visitation rights?
This is a consolidated case of the following:
1. Petitioner (P) Erlinda Ilusorio seeks to reverse the Decision:
Decision of the CA dismissing her application for 1. Marital rights including overture and living in habeas corpus to have the custody of her husband, conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the extra- lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio (Respondent, “R” for ordinary writ of habeas corpus. brevity) and enforce consortium. No court is empowered as a judicial authority to 2. Potenciano filed a petition to annul the portion of compel a husband to live with his wife. Coverture the Decision of the CA giving visitation rights her wife cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas Erlinda to her. corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other means process. Potenciano is about 86 years of age, possessed extensive properties valued at millions of pesos. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man and woman’s free choice. He was, for many years, the Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country Club. 2. CA exceeded its authority when it awarded Erlinda and Potenciano are married couple but they visitation rights in a petition for habeas corpus separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons. because P never prayed for such right. They have six (6) children (co-respondents). In this case, Potenciano was found to be of sound mind On December 30, 1997, Potenciano arrived coming from and possesses the capacity to make own choices. USA here in the Philippines. With his full mental capacity coupled with the right of He stayed for five (5) months with Erlinda in Antipolo City. choice, Potenciano may not be the subject of visitation The children, Sylvia and Erlinda, alleged that during such rights against his free choice. time, Erlinda gave Potenciano an overdosed amount of Zoloft (instead of 100mg, she gave 200mg); Otherwise, we will deprive him of his right to privacy.
thus, Potenciano’s health deteriorated.
On February 25, 1998, Erlinda filed with the RTC of
Antipolo a petition for Guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano due to latters advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment.
On May 31, 1998, After attending a corporate meeting,
Potenciano did not return to his wife in Antipolo but rather he went and lived at Makati with his children.
Because of such event, Erlinda filed a petition with the CA
for habeas corpus to have the custody of her lawyer husband, Potenciano. CA denied such petition.