VOL.

361,JULY19,2001

427

Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner

*

G.R.No.139789.July19,2001.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS

CORPUS OF POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ERLINDA K.
ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO
BILDNER,SYLVIAK.ILUSORIOYAP,JOHNDOESand
JANEDOES,respondents.
*

G.R.No.139808.July19,2001.

POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER

andSYLVIAK.ILUSORIO,petitioners,vs.HON. COURT
OFAPPEALSandERLINDAK.ILUSORIO,respondents.
Actions; Habeas Corpus; Husband and Wife; Custody; Where
the root cause of the petition for habeas corpus filed by the wife is
her desire to have her husbands custody, she cannot subsequently
deny that she wanted her husband to live with her.Erlinda K.
IlusorioclaimedthatshewasnotcompellingPotencianotolivewith
her in consortium and that Potencianos mental state was not an
issue. However, the very root cause of the entire petition is her
desiretohaveherhusbandscustody. Clearly, Erlinda cannot now
denythatshewantedPotencianoIlusoriotolivewithher.
Same; Appeals; The hornbook doctrine states that findings of
fact of the lower courts are conclusive on the Supreme
Court.Petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the Court why we
shouldnotrelyonthefactsfoundbytheCourtofAppeals.Erlinda
claimedthatthefactsmentionedinthedecisionwereerroneousand
incomplete.WeseenoreasonwhytheHighCourtofthelandneed
gotosuchlength.Thehornbookdoctrinestatesthatfindingsoffact
of the lower courts are conclusive on the Supreme Court. We
emphasize,itisnotfortheCourttoweighevidencealloveragain.
Although there are exceptions to the rule, Erlinda failed to show
thatthisisanexceptionalinstance.

Husband and Wife; The law provides that the husband and
the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and the sanction therefor is the spontaneous, mutual
affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or
court order to enforce consortium.ErlindastatesthatArticleXIIof
the 1987 Constitution and Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code
supportherpositionthatasspouses,
_________________
* FIRSTDIVISION.

428

428

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner

they(PotencianoandErlinda)aredutyboundtolivetogetherand
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
mandateorcourtordertoenforceconsortium.
Same; Words and Phrases; Empathy is defined as a shared
feeling between husband and wife experienced not only by having
spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual
communion.Obviously, there was absence of empathy between
spouses Erlinda and Potenciano, having separated from bed and
boardsince1972.Wedefinedempathyasasharedfeelingbetween
husband and wife experienced not only by having spontaneous
sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital
union is a twoway process. Marriage is definitely for two loving
adultswhoviewtherelationshipwithamor gignit amoremrespect,
sacrificeandacontinuingcommitmenttotogetherness,consciousof
itsvalueasasublimesocialinstitution.

MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONofadecisionofthe
SupremeCourt.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
Singson, Valdez & AssociatesforpetitionerE.Ilusorio.

Roxas, Delos Reyes, Laurel & RosarioforPotenciano

Ilusorio.
Agcaoili Law OfficesforSylviaK. IlusorioYap.
Bunag,Kapunan,Migallos&PerezforE.Bildner.
Lino M. PatajococounselforE.Bildner.
RESOLUTION
PARDO,J.:
Once again we see the sad tale of a prominent family
shatteredbyconflictsonexpectancyinfabledfortune.
On March 11, 1999, Erlinda K. Ilusorio, the matriarch
who was so lovingly inseparable from her husband some
yearsago,fileda
429

VOL.361,JULY19,2001

429

Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner

1

petition with the Court of Appeals for habeas corpus to

havecustodyofherhusbandinconsortium.
On April 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its
decision dismissing the petition for lack of unlawful
restraintordetentionofthesubject,PotencianoIlusorio.
Thus,onOctober11,1999,ErlindaK.Ilusoriofiledwith
the Supreme Court an appeal via certiorari pursuing her2
desiretohavecustodyofherhusbandPotencianoIlusorio.
3
This case was consolidated with another case filed by
PotencianoIlusorioandhischildren,ErlindaI.Bildnerand
SylviaK.Ilusorioappealingfromtheordergivingvisitation
rightstohiswife,assertingthatheneverrefusedtoseeher.
On 4May 12, 2000, we dismissed the petition for
habeas
5
corpus forlackofmerit,andgrantedthepetition
tonullify
6
the Court of Appeals
ruling giving visitation rights to
7
Erlinda K. Ilusorio. What is now before
the Court is
8
Erlindasmotiontoreconsiderthedecision.
OnSeptember20,2000,wesetthecaseforpreliminary
conference on October 11, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., without
requiringthemandatorypresenceoftheparties.
Inthatconference,theCourtlaiddowntheissuestobe
resolved,towit:

(a) Todeterminetheproprietyofaphysicalandmedical
examinationofpetitionerPotencianoIlusorio;
(b) Whetherthesameisrelevant;and
9
(c) Ifrelevant,howtheCourtwillconductthesame.
___________________
1DocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.51689.
2DocketedasG.R.No.139789.
3G.R.No.139808.
4G.R.No.139789.
5G.R.No.139808.
6InCAG.R.SPNo.51689,promulgatedonApril5,1999.
7Decision,RolloofG.R.No.139808,pp.290A290J.
8PromulgatedonMay12,2000.
9RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.409.

430

430

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner

Thepartiesextensivelydiscussedtheissues.TheCourt,in
its resolution, enjoined the parties and their lawyers to
initiate steps towards an amicable settlement of the case
throughmediationandothermeans.
On November 29, 2000, the Court noted the
manifestation and compliance
of the parties with the
10
resolutionofOctober11,2000.
OnJanuary31,2001,theCourtdeniedErlindaIlusorios
manifestationandmotionprayingthatPotencianoIlusorio
beproducedbeforetheCourtandbemedicallyexaminedby
11
ateamofmedicalexpertsappointedbytheCourt.
On March 27, 2001, we denied with finality Erlindas
12
motiontoreconsidertheCourtsorderofJanuary31,2001.
TheissuesraisedbyErlindaK.Ilusorioinhermotionfor
reconsiderationaremerereiterationsofherargumentsthat
havebeenresolvedinthedecision.
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 Potencianos mental state was not an issue. However,
the very root cause of the entire petition is her desire to

13

haveherhusbandscustody. Clearly,Erlindacannotnow
denythatshewantedPotencianoIlusoriotolivewithher.
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
14
greed. Sheclaimedthathertwochildrenwereusingtheir
sickandfrailfathertosignawayPotencianoandErlindas
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
Telecommunica
_________________
10RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.438.
11RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.453A.
12RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.596.
13RolloofG.R.No.139789,p.24.
14RolloofG.R.No.139808,p.311.

431

VOL.361,JULY19,2001

431

Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner

tions, she would logically assume his position and control.
Yet, Lin and
Sylvia were the ones controlling the
15
corporations.
The fact of illegal restraint has not been proved during
16
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
Courtsothatwecoulddeterminehismentalstate.
We were not convinced that Potenciano Ilusorio was
mentallyincapacitatedtochoosewhethertoseehiswifeor
not.Again,thisisaquestionoffactthathasbeendecidedin
theCourtofAppeals.
Astowhetherthechildrenwereinfacttakingcontrolof

the corporations, these are matters that may be threshed

outinaseparateproceeding,irrelevantinhabeas corpus.
Third.PetitionerfailedtosufficientlyconvincetheCourt
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
whytheHighCourtofthelandneedgotosuchlength.The
hornbook doctrine states that findings of fact of the17lower
courts are conclusive on the Supreme Court. We
emphasize,itisnotfortheCourttoweighevidenceallover
18
19
again. Althoughthereareexceptionstotherule, Erlinda
failedtoshowthatthisisanexceptionalinstance.
__________________
15RolloofG.R.No.139789,p.560.
16 Court of Appeals Decision in CAG.R. SP No. 51689, Rollo of G.R.

No.139789,pp.2938.
17 Omandam vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, 349 SCRA 483,

January18,2001.
18 Co vs. Court of Appeals, 317 Phil. 230, 238 [1995]; Gobonseng, Jr.

vs.CourtofAppeals,316Phil.570[1995].
19 Romago Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 125947, 333

SCRA 291, June 8, 2000; Halili vs. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 465
[1998];Bautistavs.MangaldanRuralBank,Inc.,230SCRA16[1994].
432

432

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ilusorio vs. IlusorioBildner

Fourth. Erlinda states that Article XII of the 1987

Constitution and Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code
supportherpositionthatasspouses,they(Potencianoand
Erlinda)aredutyboundtolivetogetherandcareforeach
other.Weagree
The law provides that the husband and the wife are
obliged20to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity. Thesanctionthereforisthespontaneous,mutual
affection between husband and wife and not
any legal
21
mandateorcourtordertoenforceconsortium.
Obviously, there was absence of empathy between
spousesErlindaandPotenciano,havingseparatedfrombed
and board since 1972. We defined empathy as a shared
feelingbetweenhusbandandwifeexperiencednotonlyby

having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of

spiritualcommunion.Maritalunionisatwowayprocess.
Marriageisdefinitelyfortwolovingadultswhoviewthe
relationshipwithamor gignit amoremrespect,sacrificeand
a continuing commitment to togetherness,
conscious of its
22
valueasasublimesocialinstitution.
On June 28, 2001, Potenciano Ilusorio gave his soul to
theAlmighty,hisCreatorandSupremeJudge.Lethissoul
restinpeaceandhissurvivorscontinuethemuchprolonged
fracasex aequo et bono.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we DENY Erlindas motion for
reconsideration. At any rate, the case has been rendered
mootbythedeathofsubject.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ.,concur.
__________________
20Art.68,FamilyCode.
21

Tsoi vs. LaoTsoi, 334 Phil. 294 [1997], citing Cuaderno vs

Cuaderno,120Phil.1298[1964].
22Tsoivs.CourtofAppeals,supra,Note21.

433

VOL.361,JULY19,2001

433

People vs. Talavera

Motion for reconsideration denied.
Notes.Thewritofhabeascorpusmaynotbeusedasa
means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a
person.(Subayno vs. Enrile,145SCRA282[1986])
Whileitistruethatthedeterminationoftherighttothe
custody of minor children is relevant in cases where the
parents,whoaremarriedtoeachother,areforsomereason
separatedfromeachother,itdoesnotfollowthatitcannot
ariseinanyothersituation.(David vs. Court of Appeals,250
SCRA82[1995])
o0o

 Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.