FACTS:

Erlinda Ilusorio filed a petition for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband, Potenciano Ilusorio, and enforce consortium rights. The Court of Appeals granted visitation rights to Erlinda and their children and dismissed the petition for lack of unlawful restraint or detention. Potenciano filed a petition to annul the visitation rights and stop Erlinda from enforcing them. The Court of Appeals ordered the enforcement of visitation rights under penalty of contempt if violated.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there is unlawful restraint on Potenciano's liberty.

2. Whether visitation rights should be granted to Erlinda.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition and nullified the visitation rights granted to Erlinda.

PRINCIPLES:

• 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.

• The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention.

• The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into involuntary restraint and relieve a person if such restraint is illegal.

• To justify the grant of the writ, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.

• There must be actual and effective detention or deprivation of liberty, not merely nominal or moral.

• The mental capacity of an individual does not hinge on age or medical condition but on their capacity to discern their actions.

• The right to choose one's residence and the people one wants to see or live with is a fundamental constitutional right founded on the person's full mental capacity.

• The court cannot compel a husband to live with his wife, as coverture cannot be enforced through the writ of habeas corpus.