SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

Madrinan v. Madrinan
July 12, 2007 Corona Naomi

SUMMARY: The husband petitioner took 3 of his children from their home so the wife files for a writ of habeas corpus with the CA. The husband is questioning the jurisdiction of the CA because according to him under Section 5(b) of RA 8369, family courts have exclusive ori inal !urisdiction to hear and decide the "etition for habeas corpus filed by res"ondent #ife$ %he Su"reme &ourt ruled in a "revious !uris"rudence that the &ourt of A""eals should have co ni'ance of this case since there is nothin in RA 8369 that revo(ed its !urisdiction to issue #rits of habeas corpus involvin the custody of minors$ RA 8369 did not divest the &ourt of A""eals and the Su"reme &ourt of their !urisdiction over habeas corpus cases involvin the custody of minors$ DOCTRINE: &ourt of A""eals and Su"reme &ourt has concurrent !urisdiction #ith the family courts of )abeas &or"us involvin custody of minors. FACTS: *etitioner +eli"e ,$ -adri.an and res"ondent +rancisca R$ -adri.an #ere married #ith three sons and a dau hter After a bitter /uarrel "etitioner left their home and too( their three sons #ith him to Albay and subsequently to Laguna$ %hus res"ondent #ife filed a petition for habeas corpus of their 3 sons in the &A, *etitioner husband filed a memorandum alle in that the #ife is unfit and he also questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b) of RA 8 !" (other#ise $no#n as the %&amily Courts Act of '""(%) family courts ha)e e*clusi)e original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas corpus filed by respondent #ife+

,he CA rendered a decision assertin its authority to ta(e co ni'ance of the "etition and rulin that, under Article 013 of the +amily &ode, res"ondent #ife #as entitled to the custody of 0 minor sons #ho #ere at that time a ed six and four, sub!ect to the visitation ri hts of husband$ 2ith res"ect to Ronnic( (the eldest) #ho #as then ei ht years old, the court ruled that his custody should be determined by the "ro"er family court in a s"ecial "roceedin on custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of &ourt$ )ence this "etition of husband$ -SS./3 *etitioner husband challen es the !urisdiction of the &ourt of A""eals over the "etition for habeas corpus and insists that !urisdiction over the case is lod ed in the family courts under RA 8369$ )e invo(es Section 5(b) of RA 83693 Section 5$ Jurisdiction of Family Courts$ 4 %he +amily &ourts shall have exclusive ori inal !urisdiction to hear and decide the follo#in cases3 xxx xxx xxx

b) *etitions for uardianshi", custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter5 xxx xxx xxx

SC RA,-01 2etitioner husband is #rong+ 1$ 6n Thornton v. Thornton, this &ourt resolved the issue of the &ourt of A""eals7 !urisdiction to issue #rits of habeas corpus in cases involvin custody of minors in the li ht of the "rovision in RA 8369 ivin family courts exclusive ori inal !urisdiction over such "etitions3

,he Court of Appeals should ta$e cogni3ance of the case since there is nothing in RA 8 !" that re)o$ed its jurisdiction to issue #rits of habeas corpus in)ol)ing the custody of minors$

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

S& rule therefore that RA 8 !" did not di)est the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction o)er habeas corpus cases in)ol)ing the custody of minors$ %he "rovisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revo(e the !urisdiction of the &ourt of A""eals and Su"reme &ourt to issue #rits of habeas corpus relatin to the custody of minors$ +urther, it cannot be said that the "rovisions of RA 8369, RA 8990 :An Act ;x"andin the <urisdiction of the &ourt of A""eals= and >* 109 :%he <udiciary Reor ani'ation Act of 1989= are absolutely incom"atible since RA 8369 does not "rohibit the &ourt of A""eals and the Su"reme &ourt from issuin #rits of habeas corpus in cases involvin the custody of minors$ %hus, the "rovisions of RA 8369 must be read in harmony #ith RA 8909 and >* 109 4 that family courts ha)e concurrent jurisdiction #ith the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus #here the custody of minors is at issue$ 0$ %he !urisdiction of the &ourt of A""eals over "etitions for habeas corpus #as further affirmed by A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on Custo ! o" Minors an #rit o" $abeas Corpus in Relation to Custo ! o" Minors:

+rom the fore oin , there is no doubt that the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ha)e concurrent jurisdiction #ith family courts in habeas corpus cases #here the custody of minors is in)ol)ed$9 (em"hases su""lied)1avvphi1 3$ S& notes that after "etitioner moved out of their *ara.a/ue residence on -ay 18, 0990, he t#ice transferred his sons to "rovinces covered by different !udicial re ions$ %his situation is #hat the Thornton inter"retation of RA 83697s "rovision on !urisdiction "recisely addressed3

6n any case, #hate)er uncertainty there #as has been settled #ith the adoption of A+4+ 5o+ 6 76 7687SC Re1 Rule on Custody of 4inors and 9rit of :abeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of 4inors$ Section 09 of the rule "rovides that3 Section 09$ Petition for writ of habeas corpus$ 4 A verified "etition for a #rit of habeas cor"us involvin custody of minors shall be filed #ith the +amily &ourt$ %he #rit shall be enforceable #ithin its !udicial re ion to #hich the +amily &ourt belon s$ ,he petition may li$e#ise be filed #ith the Su"reme &ourt, Court of Appeals, or #ith any of its members and; if so granted; the #rit shall be enforceable any#here in the 2hilippines$ %he #rit may be made returnable to a +amily &ourt or to any re ular court #ithin the re ion #here the "etitioner resides or #here the minor may be found for hearin and decision on the merits$

:%he reasonin that by ivin family courts exclusive !urisdiction over habeas corpus cases, the la#ma(ers intended them to be the sole courts #hich can issue #rits of habeas corpus= #ill result in an ini/uitous situation, leavin individuals li(e :res"ondent= #ithout le al recourse in obtainin custody of their children$ 6ndividuals #ho do not (no# the #hereabouts of minors they are loo(in for #ould be hel"less since they cannot see( redress from family courts #hose #rits are enforceable only in their res"ective territorial !urisdictions$ ,hus; if a minor is being transferred from one place to another; #hich seems to be the case here; the petitioner in a habeas corpus case #ill be left #ithout legal remedy+ ,his lac$ of recourse could not ha)e been the intention of the la#ma$ers #hen they passed <RA 8 !"=$ ?$ -oreover, a careful readin of Section 5(b) of RA 8369 reveals that family courts are vested #ith ori inal exclusive !urisdiction in custody cases, not in habeas corpus cases$ 2rits of habeas corpus #hich may be issued exclusively by family courts under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 "ertain to the ancillary remedy that may be availed of in con!unction #ith a "etition for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of &ourt$ 6n other #ords, the issuance of the #rit is merely ancillary to the custody case "endin before the family court$ %he #rit must be issued by the same court to avoid s"littin of !urisdiction, conflictin decisions, interference by a co@e/ual court and !udicial instability$

%he rule therefore is3 #hen by la# !urisdiction is conferred on a court or !udicial officer, all auxiliary #rits, "rocesses and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be em"loyed by such court or officer$ 11 Ance a court

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

ac/uires !urisdiction over the sub!ect matter of a case, it does so to the exclusion of all other courts, includin related incidents and ancillary matters$ RBC6,D3 *etition is denied$