DECISION

PARDO, J.:

May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in conjugal
bliss? The answer is no. Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not
be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention,[1] or by which
the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto.[2] Slx

"Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce
the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his capture
and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in that behalf."[3]

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.[4] It is issued when one is
deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented from exercising legal custody over another person.
[5]

The petition of Erlinda K. Ilusorio[6] is to reverse the decision[7] of the Court of Appeals and its
resolution[8] dismissing the application for habeas corpus to have the custody of her husband,
lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio and enforce consortium as the wife.

On the other hand, the petition of Potenciano Ilusorio[9] is to annul that portion of the decision
of the Court of Appeals giving Erlinda K. Ilusorio visitation rights to her husband and to enjoin
Erlinda and the Court of Appeals from enforcing the visitation rights.

The undisputed facts are as follows: Scslx

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. For many years, lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio was Chairman of the Board and President of
Baguio Country Club.

On July 11, 1942, Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio contracted matrimony and lived
together for a period of thirty (30) years. In 1972, they separated from bed and board for
undisclosed reasons. Potenciano lived at Urdaneta Condominium, Ayala Ave., Makati City when
he was in Manila and at Ilusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio City. On
the other hand, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.

Out of their marriage, the spouses had six (6) children, namely: Ramon Ilusorio (age 55); Erlinda
Ilusorio Bildner (age 52); Maximo (age 50); Sylvia (age 49); Marietta (age 48); and Shereen (age
39).

On December 30, 1997, upon Potencianos arrival from the United States, he stayed with Erlinda
for about five (5) months in Antipolo City. The children, Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin), alleged that
during this time, their mother gave Potenciano an overdose of 200 mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft,
an antidepressant drug prescribed by his doctor in New York, U.S.A. As a consequence,
Potencianos health deteriorated.

On February 25, 1998, Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City a petition[10] for
guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latters advanced
age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment.

On May 31, 1998, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano Ilusorio did not
return to Antipolo City and instead lived at Cleveland Condominium, Makati. Slxsc

On March 11, 1999, Erlinda filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to have
the custody of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio. She alleged that respondents[11] refused petitioners
demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo
City.
After due hearing, on April 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered decision the dispositive
portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, judgment is hereby rendered:

"(1) Ordering, for humanitarian consideration and upon petitioners manifestation, respondents
Erlinda K. Ilusorio Bildner and Sylvia Ilusorio-Yap, the administrator of Cleveland Condominium
or anywhere in its place, his guards and Potenciano Ilusorios staff especially Ms. Aurora
Montemayor to allow visitation rights to Potenciano Ilusorios wife, Erlinda Ilusorio and all her
children, notwithstanding any list limiting visitors thereof, under penalty of contempt in case of
violation of refusal thereof; xxx

"(2) ORDERING that the writ of habeas corpus previously issued be recalled and the herein
petition for habeas corpus be DENIED DUE COURSE, as it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
unlawful restraint or detention of the subject of the petition.

"SO ORDERED."[12]

Hence, the two petitions, which were consolidated and are herein jointly decided.

As heretofore stated, a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention,[13] or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled
thereto. It is available where a person continues to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his
constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due process, where the restraints are not
merely involuntary but are unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has
later become arbitrary.[14] It is devised as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint, as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.[15] Jksm

The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.[16]
To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary
deprivation of freedom of action.[17] The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective,
not merely nominal or moral.[18]

The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorios 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. Soundness of mind does not hinge on age or medical condition but
on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions.

After due hearing, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no unlawful restraint on his
liberty.

The Court of Appeals also observed that lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio did not request the
administrator of the Cleveland Condominium not to allow his wife and other children from
seeing or visiting him. He made it clear that he did not object to seeing them.

As to lawyer Potenciano Ilusorios mental state, the Court of Appeals observed that he was of
sound and alert mind, having answered all the relevant questions to the satisfaction of the court.

Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the capacity to make choices. In this case, the
crucial choices revolve on his residence and the people he opts to see or live with. The choices
he made may not appeal to some of his family members but these are choices which exclusively
belong to Potenciano. He made it clear before the Court of Appeals that he was not prevented
from leaving his house or seeing people. With that declaration, and absent any true restraint on
his liberty, we have no reason to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals.

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. Es m
The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority when it awarded visitation rights in a petition for
habeas corpus where Erlinda never even prayed for such right. The ruling is not consistent with
the finding of subjects sanity.

When the court ordered the grant of visitation rights, it also emphasized that the same shall be
enforced under penalty of contempt in case of violation or refusal to comply. Such assertion of
raw, naked power is unnecessary.

The Court of Appeals missed the fact that the case did not involve the right of a parent to visit a
minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In case the husband refuses to see his wife
for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat of any penalty attached to the
exercise of his 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 womans free choice.

WHEREFORE, in G. R. No. 139789, the Court DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit. No costs.

In G. R. No. 139808, the Court GRANTS the petition and nullifies the decision of the Court of
Appeals insofar as it gives visitation rights to respondent Erlinda K. Ilusorio. No costs.

SO ORDERED.