ILUSORIO V. ILUSORIO-BILDNER July 19, 2001 <SUBSEQUENT TO ILUSORIO V.

BILDNER> THIS CASE IS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the Supreme Court on the previous case Ilusorio v. Bildner G.R. No. 139789 (petition for writ of habeas corpus) and G.R. No. 139808 (visitation rights) FACTS (you may refer to the previous case Ilusorio v. Bildner digested by George and I) March 11,1999- Erlinda Ilusorio filed with CA for petition of a writ of habeas corpus April 15, 1999- CA dismissed for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the subject (Potenciano) October 11, 1999- Erlinda filed with SC an appeal via certiorari May 12, 2000- SC DISMISSED the petition for habeas corpus and GRANTED the petition to NULLIFY the CAs ruling giving visitation rights to Erlinda K. Ilusorio HENCE, the motion for reconsideration ISSUE: Whether the petitioner shall be granted a motion for reconsideration HELD: NO JURISPRUDENCE: The Court is not convinced that Potenciano was mentally incapacitated to choose whether to see his wife or not. The court finds that this is a question of fact that has been decided in the CA. The HORNBOOK DOCTRINE states that findings of fact of the lower courts are conclusive on the SC. Marriage is definitely for two loving adults who view the relationship with amor gigniit amorem respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to togetherness, conscious of its value as a sublime institution. [citation from Tsoi v. CA] DISPOSITIVE: {On June 28, 2001, Potenciano died } IN VIEW WHEREOF, we DENY Erlidas motion for reconsideration. At any rate, the case has been rendered moot by the death of the subject.

Previous case to Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Bildner ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, respondents.

FACTS: Erlinda and Atty. Potenciano got married on July 11, 1942, lived together for thirty years but in 1972 they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons. They had six children, Ramon, Erlinda Bildner (pet.), Maximo, Sylvia (pet.), Marietta, and Shereen. On dec. 30,1997, upon Potencianos arrival from the U.S. he stayed with his wife for 5 mos. In Antipolo. Their children, Erlinda Bildner and Slyvia alleged that their mother gave their father an overdose of 200 mg instead of 100mg of Zoloft an anti-depressant drug, as a consequence their fathers health deteriorated On February 25, 1998, Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City a petition 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. On March 11, 1999, Erlinda filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of his husband. She alleged that respondent refused petitioners demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City. CA DENIED PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS

ISSUE: Whether or not a wife may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to l ive with her in conjugal bliss? HELD: NO JURISPRUDENCE: 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.

NOTE: This case is in relevance to Art.68 FC