FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 139789, July 19, 2001 ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF POTENCIANO

VS.

ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO-YAP, JOHN DOES AND JANE

[G.R. No. 139808]

POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER AND SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO,

VS.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, RESPONDENTS.

RESOLUTION

PARDO, J.:

Once again we see the sad tale of a prominent family shattered by conflicts on expectancy in
fabled fortune.

On March 11, 1999, Erlinda K. Ilusorio, the matriarch who was so lovingly inseparable from
her husband some years ago, filed a petition with the Court of Appeals 1 for habeas corpus
to have custody of her husband in consortium.

On April 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision dismissing the petition for lack
of unlawful restraint or detention of the subject, Potenciano Ilusorio.

Thus, on October 11, 1999, Erlinda K. Ilusorio filed with the Supreme Court an appeal via
certiorari pursuing her desire to have custody of her husband Potenciano Ilusorio. 2 This
case was consolidated with another case 3 filed by Potenciano Ilusorio and his children,
Erlinda I. Bildner and Sylvia K. Ilusorio appealing from the order giving visitation rights to his
wife, asserting that he never refused to see her.

On May 12, 2000, we dismissed the petition for habeas corpus 4 for lack of merit, and
granted the petition 5 to nullify the Court of Appeals' ruling 6 giving visitation rights to
 7
Erlinda K. Ilusorio.
8
What is now before the Court is Erlinda' s motion to reconsider the decision.

On September 20, 2000, we set the case for preliminary conference on October 11, 2000, at
10:00 a. m., without requiring the mandatory presence of the parties.

In that conference, the Court laid down the issues to be resolved, to wit:

(a)

To determine the propriety of a physical and medical examination of petitioner Potenciano

(b)

Whether the same is relevant; and

(c)
9
If relevant, how the Court will conduct the same.

The parties extensively discussed the issues. The Court, in its resolution, enjoined the parties
and their lawyers to initiate steps towards an amicable settlement of the case through
mediation and other means.

On November 29, 2000, the Court noted the manifestation and compliance of the parties with
10
the resolution of October 11, 2000.

On January 31, 2001, the Court denied Erlinda Ilusorio's manifestation and motion praying
that Potenciano Ilusorio be produced before the Court and be medically examined by a team
of medical experts appointed by the Court. 11

On March 27, 2001, we denied with finality Erlinda' s motion to reconsider the Court's order of
12
January 31, 2001.

The issues raised by Erlinda K. Ilusorio in her motion for reconsideration are mere reiterations
of her arguments that have been resolved in the decision.

Nevertheless, for emphasis, we shall discuss the issues thus:

First. Erlinda K. Ilusorio claimed that she was not compelling Potenciano to live with her in
consortium and that Potenciano' s mental state was not an issue. However, the very root
cause of the entire petition is her desire to have her husband's custody. 13 Clearly, Erlinda
cannot now deny that she wanted Potenciano Ilusorio to live with her.

Page 2
Second. One reason why Erlinda K. Ilusorio sought custody of her husband was that
respondents Lin and Sylvia were illegally restraining Potenciano Ilusorio to fraudulently
deprive her of property rights out of pure greed. 14 She claimed that her two children were
using their sick and frail father to sign away Potenciano and Erlinda' s property to companies
controlled by Lin and Sylvia. She also argued that since Potenciano retired as director and
officer of Baguio Country Club and Philippine Oversees Telecommunications, she would
logically assume his position and control. Yet, Lin and Sylvia were the ones controlling the
corporations. 15

The fact of illegal restraint has not been proved during the hearing at the Court of Appeals on
16
March 23, 1999. Potenciano himself declared that he was not prevented by his children
from seeing anybody and that he had no objection to seeing his wife and other children whom
he loved.

Erlinda highlighted that her husband suffered from various ailments. Thus, Potenciano Ilusorio
did not have the mental capacity to decide for himself. Hence, Erlinda argued that Potenciano
be brought before the Supreme Court so that we could determine his mental state.

We were not convinced that Potenciano Ilusorio was mentally incapacitated to choose whether
to see his wife or not. Again, this is a question of fact that has been decided in the Court of
Appeals.

As to whether the children were in fact taking control of the corporations, these are matters
that may be threshed out in a separate proceeding, irrelevant in habeas corpus.

Third. Petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the Court why we should not rely on the facts
found by the Court of Appeals. Erlinda claimed that the facts mentioned in the decision were
erroneous and incomplete. We see no reason why the High Court of the land need go to such
length. The hornbook doctrine states that findings of fact of the lower courts are conclusive on
the Supreme Court. 17 We emphasize, it is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.
18
Although there are exceptions to the rule, 19 Erlinda failed to show that this is an
exceptional instance.

Fourth. Erlinda states that Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and Articles 68 and 69 of the
Family Code support her position that as spouses, they (Potenciano and Erlinda) are duty
bound to live together and care for each other. We agree.

The law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
20
love, respect and fidelity. The sanction therefor is the "spontaneous, mutual affection
between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" to enforce consortium.
21

Obviously, there was absence of empathy between spouses Erlinda and Potenciano, having
separated from bed and board since 1972. We defined empathy as a shared feeling between
husband and wife experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep

Page 3
sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way process.
Marriage is definitely for two loving adults who view the relationship with "amor gignit amorem"
respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to togetherness, conscious of its value as a
sublime social institution. 22

On June 28, 2001, Potenciano Ilusorio gave his soul to the Almighty, his Creator and Supreme
Judge. Let his soul rest in peace and his survivors continue the much prolonged fracas ex
aequo et bono.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we DENY Erlinda's motion for reconsideration. At any rate, the case has
been rendered moot by the death of subject.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
1
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51689.
2
Docketed as G. R. No. 139789.
3
G.R. No.139808.
4
G.R. No. 139789.
5
G.R. No. 139808.
6
In CA-G.R. SP No.51689, promulgated on April 5, 1999.
7
Decision, Rollo of G.R. No. 139808, pp. 290-A-290-J.
8
Promulgated on May 12, 2000.
9
Rollo of G.R. No. 139808, p. 409.
10
Rollo of G.R. No. 139808, p. 438.
11
Rollo of G.R. No. 139808, p. 453-A.
12
Rollo of G.R. No. 139808, p. 596.
13
Rollo of G.R. No. 139789, p. 24.
14
Rollo of G.R. No. 139808, p. 311
15
Rollo of G.R. No. 139789, p. 560.
16
Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 51689, Rollo of G.R. No. 139789, pp. 29-38.
17

Page 4
17
Omandam vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, January 18, 2001.
18
Co vs. Court of Appeals, 317 Phil. 230, 238 [1995]; Gobonseng, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals,
316 Phil. 570 [1995].
19
Romago Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125947, June 8, 2000; Halili vs. Court
of Appeals, 287 SCRA 465 [1998]; Bautista vs. Mangaldan Rural Bank, Inc., 230 SCRA 16
[1994].
20
Art. 68, Family Code.
21
Tsoi vs. Lao-Tsoi, 334 Phil. 294 [1997], citing Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298
[1964].
22
Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 21.

Page 5