FIRST DIVISION

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

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF

POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO , petitioner, vs.
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO-YAP,
JOHN DOES and JANE DOES, respondents.

[G.R. No. 139808. July 19, 2001.]

POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and

SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS and ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, respondents.

Singson Valdez & Associates for E. Ilusorio.

Roxas Delos Reyes Laurel & Rosario for P. Ilusorio
Agcaoili Law Offices for S. Ilusorio-Yap
Bunag Kapunan Migallos & Perez and Lino M. Patajo for E. Bildner.

SYNOPSIS

This case stemmed from a petition for habeas corpus filed by Erlinda K.
Ilusorio before the Court of Appeals to have custody of her husband
Potenciano Ilusorio in consortium. The petition was dismissed by the
appellate court for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the subject. The
appellate court, however, gave visitation rights to Erlinda K. Ilusorio. The
dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus was affirmed by the Supreme
Court. However, the appellate court's ruling giving visitation rights to Erlinda
K. Ilusorio was nullified by the Court. CcAESI

Hence, this motion for reconsideration.

Erlinda contended that the facts mentioned in the decision of the Court
of Appeals were erroneous and incomplete. She claimed that Potenciano
suffered from various ailments. Thus, he did not have the mental capacity to
decide for himself. Erlinda argued that Potenciano must be brought before
the Court so that his mental state could be determined.
Erlinda sought custody of her husband contending, among others, that
respondents Lin and Sylvia, her daughters, were illegally restraining
Potenciano Ilusorio to fraudulently deprive her of property rights out of pure
greed. She 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 Lina and Sylvia were the
ones controlling the corporations.
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 The Court was not convinced that Potenciano Ilusorio was mentally
incapacitated to choose whether to see his wife or not. 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, the Court held that these matters may be threshed out in a
separate proceeding, irrelevant in habeas corpus.
Petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the Court why it should not rely
on the facts found by the Court of Appeals. The hornbook doctrine states
that findings of fact of the lower courts are conclusive on the Supreme Court.
It is not for the Court to weigh the evidence all over again. Although there
are exceptions to the rule, Erlinda failed to show that this was an exceptional
circumstance.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE LOWER

COURT ARE CONCLUSIVE ON THE SUPREME COURT. — 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. We
emphasize, it is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again. Although
there are exceptions to the rule, Erlinda failed to show that this is an
exceptional instance. EIASDT

2. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGE; MARITAL OBLIGATIONS. — 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.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; MARITAL UNION IS A TWO-WAY PROCESS. — 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. 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.

RESOLUTION

PARDO, J, : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 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. AcDaEH

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 Erlinda K. Ilusorio. 7

What is now before the Court is Erlinda's motion to reconsider the

decision. 8
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 Ilusorio;
(b) Whether the same is relevant; and

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

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 the resolution of October 11, 2000. 10
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 January 31 , 2001. 12
The issues raised by Erlinda K. Ilusorio in her motion for
reconsideration are mere reiterations of her arguments that have been
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
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 CHTAIc

The fact of illegal restraint has not been proved during the hearing at
the Court of Appeals on March 23, 1999. 16 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
corporation, 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 love, respect and fidelity. 20 The sanction therefor
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com