THORNTON v THORNTON

G.R. No. 154598/ August 16, 2004

Facts:
Petitioner Thornton was an American and respondent, was a Filipino.
There were married in the Philippines and had a daughter. After 3 years
of marriage, whenever petitioner was out of the country, respondent was
also often out with her friends, leaving her daughter in the care of the
house helper. 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 was 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impliedly repealed by R.A. 7902 ( An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the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:
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 disagree 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. 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.