Madrinan v. Madrinan Digest

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. CA. The husband is questioning questioning the jurisdiction of the CA because according to him under Section 5(b) of RA 8369, family courts courts have exclusive exclusive oriinal oriinal !urisdiction !urisdiction to hear and decide decide the "etition for habeas habeas corpus corpus filed filed by res"on res"onden dentt #ife$ #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 revoed its !urisdiction !urisdiction to issue #rits of habeas habeas corpus 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 corpus  cases involvin the custody of minors$ &ourt &ourt of A""eal A""ealss and Su"rem Su"remee &ourt &ourt has concur concurren rentt  !urisdiction #ith the family courts of abeas &or"us involvin custody of minors. minors. DOCTR DOCTRIN INE: E:

FACTS:

,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 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./ *etitioner husband challenes the !urisdiction of the &ourt of A""eals over the "etition for habeas corpus and 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 8369

Section 5$ Jurisdiction 5$  Jurisdiction of Family Courts$ Courts$ 4 %he +amily &ourts shall have exclusive oriinal !urisdiction to hear and decide the follo#in cases xxx

%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 corpus filed by respondent #ife+

xxx

 b) *etitions for uardianshi", uardianshi", custody of children, habeas corpus in corpus  in relation to the latter

*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$

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

SC RA,-01 2etitioner husband is #rong+

1$

n Thornton v. Thornton , this &ourt resolved the issue of the &ourt of A""eals7 !urisdiction to issue #rits of habeas corpus in 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  "etitions

,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 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 90 :An Act ;x"andin the * 109 :%he