|
Ilusorio vs. Ilusorio-Bildner,
G.R. No.
139789. July 19, 2001; G.R. No. 139808, July
19, 2001
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 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. This case was
consolidated with another case 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
for lack of merit, and granted the petition to nullify the
Court of Appeals' ruling giving visitation rights to Erlinda
K. Ilusorio.
What is now before the Court is Erlinda' s
motion to reconsider the decision.
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 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.
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. Clearly, Erlinda cannot now deny that she wanted Potenciano
Ilusorio to live with her.
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. 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.
The fact of illegal restraint has not been
proved during the hearing at the Court of Appeals on 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 Courtof
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.
xxx 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.
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 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.
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 sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is
a two-way process.
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.
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rules of Court
Rule 102 Habeas Corpus
Note: Please see the
Supreme Court rule on habeas
corpus and custody of minors.
Sec. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. - Except as otherwise expressly provided
by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto.
Sec. 2. Who may grant the writ. - The writ of habeas
corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof,
on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any member
thereof in the instances authorized by law, and if so granted it
shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be made
returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before the
Court of First Instance, or any judge thereof for the hearing and
decision on the merits. It may also be granted by a Court of First
Instance, or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, and returnable
before himself, enforceable only within his judicial district.
Sec. 3. Requisites of application therefor.
- Application for the writ shall be by petition signed and verified
either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some
person on his behalf, and shall set forth:
(a) That the person in whose
behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained of
his liberty;
(b) The officer or name of the
person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained; or, if both
are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described
by an assumed appellation, and the person who is served with the
writ shall be deemed the person intended;
(c) The place where he is so
imprisoned or restrained, if known;
(d) A copy of the commitment
or cause of detention of such person, if it can be procured without
impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment
or restraint is without any legal authority, such fact shall appear.
Sec. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. - If it appears that the
person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody
of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue
of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court
or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment,
or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction
appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged
by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment,
or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the
discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in
the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful
judgment.
Sec. 5. When the writ must be granted and issued. - A court or judge authorized
to grant the writ must, when a petition therefor
is presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue, grant
the same forthwith, and immediately thereupon the clerk of the court
shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of
emergency, the judge may issue the writ under his own hand, and
may depute any officer or person to serve it.
Sec. 6. To whom writ directed, and what to require. -
In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer, the writ shall
be directed to him, and shall command him to have the body of the
person restrained of his liberty before the court or judge designated
in the writ at the time and place therein specified. In case of
imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer, the writ shall
be directed to an officer, and shall command him to take and have
the body of the person restrained of his liberty before the court
or judge designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified,
and to summon the person by whom he is restrained then and there
to appear before said court or judge to show the cause of the imprisonment
or restraint.
Sec. 7. How prisoner designated and writ served. - The person to be produced should
be designated in the writ by his name, if known, but if his name
is not known he may be otherwise described or identified. The writ
may be served in any province by the sheriff or other proper officer,
or by a person deputed by the court or judge. Service of the writ
shall be made by leaving the original with the person to whom it
is directed and preserving a copy on which to make return of service.
If that person cannot be found, or has not the prisoner in his custody,
then the service shall be made on any other person having or exercising
such custody.
Sec. 8. How writ executed and returned. - The officer to whom the writ is directed
shall convey the person so imprisoned or restrained, and named in
the writ, before the judge allowing the writ, or, in case of his
absence or disability, before some other judge of the same court,
on the day specified in the writ, unless, from sickness or infirmity
of the person directed to be produced, such person cannot, without
danger, be brought before the court or judge; and the officer shall
make due return of the writ, together with the day and the cause
of the caption and restraint of such person according to the command
thereof.
Sec. 9. Defect of form. - No writ of habeas corpus can be disobeyed for defect
of form, if it sufficiently appears therefrom in whose custody or
under whose restraint the party imprisoned or restrained is held
and the court or judge before whom he is to be brought.
Sec. 10. Contents of return. - When the person to be produced
is imprisoned or restrained by an officer, the person who makes
the return shall state therein, and in other cases the person in
whose custody the prisoner is found shall state, in writing to the
court or judge before whom the writ is returnable, plainly and unequivocably:
(a) Whether he has or has not
the party in his custody or power, or under restraint;
(b) If he has the party in his
custody or power, or under restraint, the authority and the true
and whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the
writ, order, execution, or other process, if any, upon which the
party is held;
(c) If the party is in his custody
or power or is restrained by him, and is not produced, particularly
the nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of such party
by reason of which he cannot, without danger, be brought before
the court or judge;
(d) If he has had the party in
his custody or power, or under restraint, and has transferred
such custody or restraint to another, particularly to whom, at
what time, for what cause, and by what authority such transfer
was made.
Sec. 11. Return to be signed and sworn to. - The return or statement shall be signed
by the person who makes it; and shall also be sworn to by him if
the prisoner is not produced, and in all other cases unless the
return is made and signed by a sworn public officer in his official
capacity.
Sec. 12. Hearing on return; Adjournments. - When the writ is returned before one
judge, at a time when the court is in session, he may forthwith
adjourn the case into the court, there to be heard and determined.
The court or judge before whom the writ is returned or adjourned
must immediately proceed to hear and examine the return, and such
other matters as are properly submitted for consideration, unless
for good cause shown the hearing is adjourned, in which event the
court or judge shall make such order for the safekeeping of the
person imprisoned or restrained as the nature of the case requires.
If the person imprisoned or restrained is not produced because of
his alleged sickness or infirmity, the court or judge must be satisfied
that it is so grave that such person cannot be produced without
danger, before proceeding to hear and dispose of the matter. On
the hearing the court or judge shall disregard matters of form and
technicalities in respect to any warrant or order of commitment
of a court or officer authorized to commit by law.
Sec. 13. When the return evidence, and when only a plea. - If it appears that the
prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance
of law, the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the
cause of restraint; but if he is restrained of his liberty by any
alleged private authority, the return shall be considered only as
a plea of the facts therein set forth, and the party claiming the
custody must prove such facts.
Sec. 14. When person lawfully imprisoned recommitted, and when let to bail. - If
it appears that the prisoner was lawfully committed, and is plainly
and specifically charged in the warrant of commitment with an offense
punishable by death, he shall not be released, discharged, or bailed.
If he is lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a charge of having
committed an offense not so punishable, he may be recommitted to
imprisonment or admitted to bail in the discretion of the court
or judge. If he be admitted to bail, he shall forthwith file a bond
in such sum as the court or judge deems reasonable, considering
the circumstances of the prisoner and the nature of the offense
charged, conditioned for his appearance before the court where the
offense is properly cognizable to abide its order or judgment; and
the court or judge shall certify the proceedings, together with
the bond, forthwith to the proper court. If such bond is not so
filed, the prisoner shall be recommitted to confinement.
Sec. 15. When prisoner discharged if no appeal. - When
the court or judge has examined into the cause of caption and restraint
of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he is unlawfully imprisoned
or restrained, he shall forthwith order his discharge from confinement,
but such discharge shall not be effective until a copy of the order
has been served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner.
If the officer or person detaining the prisoner does not desire
to appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith released.
Sec. 16. Penalty for refusing to issue writ, or for disobeying
the same. - A clerk of a court who refuses to issue the writ
after allowance thereof and demand therefor,
or a person to whom a writ is directed, who neglects or refuses
to obey or make return of the same according to the command thereof,
or makes false return thereof, or who, upon demand made by or on
behalf of the prisoner, refuses to deliver to the person demanding,
within six (6) hours after the demand therefor,
a true copy of the warrant or order of commitment, shall forfeit
to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered
in a proper action, and may also be punished by the court or judge
as for contempt.
Sec. 17. Person discharged not to be again imprisoned. - A person who is set at
liberty upon a writ of habeas corpus shall not be again imprisoned
for the same offense unless by the lawful order or process of a
court having jurisdiction of the cause or offense; and a person
who knowingly, contrary to the provisions of this rule, recommits
or imprisons, or causes to be committed or imprisoned, for the same
offense, or pretended offense, any person so set at liberty, or
knowingly aids or assists therein, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved
the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered in a proper action,
notwithstanding any colorable pretense or variation in the warrant
of commitment, and may also be punished by the court or judge granting
writ as for contempt.
Sec. 18. When prisoner may be removed from one custody
to another. - A person committed to prison, or in custody of an
officer, for any criminal matter, shall not be removed therefrom
into the custody of another officer unless by legal process, or
the prisoner be delivered to an inferior officer to carry to jail,
or, by order of the proper court or judge, be removed from one place
to another within the Philippines for trial, or in case of fire,
epidemic, insurrection, or other necessity or public calamity; and
a person who, after such commitment, makes, signs, or countersigns
any order for such removal contrary to this section, shall forfeit
to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered
in a proper action.
Sec. 19. Record of writ, fees and costs. - The proceedings
upon a writ of habeas corpus shall be recorded by the clerk of the
court, and upon the final disposition of such proceedings the court
or judge shall make such order as to costs as the case requires.
The fees of officers and witnesses shall be included in the costs
taxed, but no officer or person shall have the right to demand payment
in advance of any fees to which he is entitled by virtue of the
proceedings. When a person confined under color of proceedings in
a criminal case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against
the Republic of the Philippines, and paid out of its Treasury; when
a person in custody by virtue or under color of proceedings in a
civil case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against him,
or against the person who signed the application for the writ, or
both, as the court shall direct.
Back to top |