+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Thornton v Thornton

Thornton v Thornton

Date post: 12-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: queenie-sablada
View: 249 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
digest
Popular Tags:
3
THORNTON v THORNTON G.R. No. 154598/ August 16, 2004 CORONA Facts – Review on the resolution of CA dismissing the petition of habeas corpus on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of substance. Petitioner, an American and respondent, a Filipino was married in the Philippines and has a daughter. After 3 years, whenever petitioner was out of the country, respondent was also often out with her friends, leaving her daughter in the care of the househelp. 2001, respondent left the family home with her daughter without notifying her husband and told the servant that she is bringing the child in Basilan. Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Family Court of Makati but was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction since the child is in Basilan. Petitioner went to Basilan and search, but was unsuccessful. He again filed writ of Habeas Corpus in the Court of Appeals but was denied on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the case. CA ruled that R.A. 8369 (The Family Courts Act of 1997) gave family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus, it impliedly repealed by R.A. 7902 ( An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and Batas Pambansa 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). Issue – Whether CA has jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in the light of the provision in RA 8369 giving family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over such petitions. Ruling –
Transcript
Page 1: Thornton v Thornton

THORNTON v THORNTONG.R. No. 154598/ August 16, 2004

CORONA

Facts –

• Review on the resolution of CA dismissing the petition of habeas corpus on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of substance.

• Petitioner, an American and respondent, a Filipino was married in the Philippines and has a daughter.

• After 3 years, whenever petitioner was out of the country, respondent was also often out with her friends, leaving her daughter in the care of the househelp.

• 2001, respondent left the family home with her daughter without notifying her husband and told the servant that she is bringing the child in Basilan.

• Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Family Court of Makati but was dis-missed due to lack of jurisdiction since the child is in Basilan.

• Petitioner went to Basilan and search, but was unsuccessful. He again filed writ of Habeas Corpus in the Court of Appeals but was denied on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the case.

• CA ruled that R.A. 8369 (The Family Courts Act of 1997) gave family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus, it impliedly repealed by R.A. 7902 ( An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and Batas Pambansa 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).

Issue –

• Whether CA has jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in the light of the provision in RA 8369 giving family courts exclusive original ju-risdiction over such petitions.

Ruling –

• The Court of Appeals should take cognizance of the case since there is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors.

• According to CA, Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction within such cases. SC dis-agree on that reasoning because individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions.

• Thus, if a minor is being transferred from one place to another, the petitioner in a habeas corpus will be left without legal remedy.

• The Family Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions of habeas corpus where the custody of the minors is at issue as based on Section 20 on the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to minors.

Page 2: Thornton v Thornton

• The literal interpretation of the word “exclusive” will result in grave injustice and negate the policy to promote the right and welfare of the children.

• Petition for habeas corpus is Granted. Serving officer shall search for the child all over the country.

Doctrine – ( F. Repeal of Laws)

• SC holds that the Family Code Act of 1997 did not empower the family courts to exclusively is-sue writs of habeas corpus and it did not revoke the capacity of SC and CA to issue writs of habeas corpus.

• In relation to the word ―exclusive, although it is assumed that the language of the laws should follow common understanding, the spirit of the law and intention of the lawmakers come first than legal technicalities.

• The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

• Also, in cases where the territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of the writ cannot be deter-mined with certainty, the Court of Appeals can issue the same writ enforceable throughout the Philippines as provided in Sec. 2, Rule 102, Rev. Rules of Court.

• Sec.5 - Jurisdiction of Family Court - The Family courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases: b) Petition for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter.

• Section 20 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors provides that a petition for habeas corpus may be filed in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.


Recommended