Jason Patrick T.

Lagahit PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO vs.

ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO-YAP, JOHN DOES and JANE DOES
G.R. No. 139789 July 19, 2001
_____________________________________________________________________________________

FACTS:

Erlinda Ilusorio filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for habeas corpus to have custody of
her husband, Potenciano Ilusorio, in consortium on March 11, 1999. On April 5, 1999, CA dismissed the
petition for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of her husband which made Erlinda appealed to the
Supreme Court. On May 12, 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed Erlinda’s appeal.

She claims that Lin and Sylvia, their children, were illegally restraining Potenciano to
fraudulently deprive her of property rights out of greed and that they were using their sick and frail
father to sign away their parents’ property to companies controlled by Lin and Sylvia. She also claimed
that their children took advantage of their father’s various ailments that allegedly rendered him to have
the mental incapacity to decide for himself. She stated that Articles 68 of the Family Code support her
position that as spouses, they are duty-bound to live together and care for each other.

ISSUES:

 WON the children of Potenciano and Erlinda are illegally restraining Potenciano?
 WON Erlinda and Potenciano are duty bound to live together and care for each other?

RULING:

 No. The claim of Erlinda that their children is illegally restraining Potenciano has not been
proved. That he 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. There is also
no convincing evidence that he was mentally incapacitated to choose whether to see his wife or
not. As to the control of the corporations, these are separate matters that are irrelevant in a
habeas corpus petition.
 Yes. The Supreme Court agreed to the contention of Erlinda about the rights and obligations
between husband and wife as provided in Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

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. The Court 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. However, in
Jason Patrick T. Lagahit PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

June 28, 2001, Potenciano Iluroio died therefore this case has been rendered moot by the death
of the subject.
TOMAS EUGENIO, SR. vs.
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Presiding Judge , DEPUTY SHERIFF JOHNSON TAN, JR., Deputy Sheriff of
RTC, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, & the Private Respondents, CRISANTA VARGAS-SANCHEZ,
SANTOS and NARCISA VARGAS-BENTULAN
G.R. No. 85140 May 17, 1990
_____________________________________________________________________________________

FACTS:

Respondents, brothers and sisters of Vitaliana Vargas was unaware of the his death on August
28, 1988 filed a petition for Habeas Corpus on September 27, 1988 before the RTC of Misamis Oriental
alleging that she was forcible taken from her residence sometime in 1987 and was confined by the
herein petitioner, Tomas Eugenio in his palacial residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental.

The respondent court in an order dated September 28, 1988 issued the writ of habeas corpus,
but the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner refused to surrender the body of Vitaliana to the
respondent sheriff, reasoning that a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas corpus proceedings;
besides, according to petitioner, he had already obtained a burial permit. Petitioner claims that as her
common law husband, he has legal custody of her body.

ISSUE: WON the surviving brothers and sisters have the custody of the dead body of Vitaliana?

RULING:

YES. The custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to the surviving brothers
and sisters. Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides: “Persons charged with
duty of burial - if the deceased was an unmarried man or woman or a child and left any kin; the duty of
the burial shall devolve upon the nearest kin of the deceased. Philippine Law does not recognize
common law marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for many years as husband
and wife, who represent themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who are reputed to be
husband and wife in the community where they live may be considered legally married in common law
jurisdictions but not in the Philippines.
Jason Patrick T. Lagahit PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

FE FLORO VALINO vs.

ROSARIO D. ADRIANO, FLORANTE D. ADRIANO, RUBEN D. ADRIANO, MARIA TERESA ADRIANO
ONGOCO, VICTORIA ADRIANO BAYONA, and LEAH ANTONETTE D. ADRIANO
G.R. No. 182894 April 22, 2014
_____________________________________________________________________________________

FACTS:
Atty. Adriano Adriano is married to respondent Rosario. They have 2 sons and 1 adopted
daughter but were eventually separated-in-fact. Years later, Atty. Adriano courted Petitioner Fe Valino
(Common Law Partner), one of his clients, until they decided to live together as husband and wife.
Despite such arrangement, he continued to provide financial support to Rosario and their children.

Atty. Adriano died while Rosario was in the US with the Adriano children. Valino arranged the
burial and shouldered the expenses. Rosario asked Valino to delay the burial for a few days, but the
latter did not heed the request. Rosario and her children were not able to attend the interment.
Respondents (LW and children) claim that they were deprived of the chance to view the remains of Atty.
Adriano before he was buried and that his burial at the Manila Memorial Park was contrary to his
wishes. RTC ruled that petitioner Fe Floro Valino was entitled to the remains of the decedent. The CA
reversed this ruling. Thus, this petition for review on the CA’s decision and resolution.

ISSUE: WON Rosario is entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano?

RULING:

Yes. Article 305 of the Civil Code, in relation to what is now Article 199 of the Family Code,
specifies the persons who have the right and duty to make funeral arrangements for the deceased.
Article 308 of the Civil Code further supports FC Art. 199; and Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative
Code provides for persons charged with the duty of burial.

The Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. Thus, the court held that the
provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to the contrary, when referring to a spouse
contemplate a lawfully wedded spouse. As applied to this case, it is clear that the law gives the right and
duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano.