THORNTON vs THORNTON

PETITIONER: RICHARD BRIAN THORNTON RESPONDENT: ADELFA FRANCISCO THORNTON FACTS: 1. Petitioner files habeas corpus in the designated family court in Makati but was dismissed presumably because of the allegation that the child was in Basilan. 2. Petitioner went to Basilan however did not find them there; and Brgy. Office of Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan Issued a certification that respondent was no longer residing there. 3. Based on cellular phone bills, respondent moves from one place to another. 4. Court of Appeals denied the petition for habeas corpus on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the case. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 8369 (FAMILY COURTS ACT) impliedly repealed BP 129 and RA 7902 in sofar as the jurisdiction of the court to issue writ of habeas corpus in custody of minor cases is concerned? BP 129 Section 9(1) as amended by RA 7902 of 1980. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; RA 8369 of 1997 (Family Courts Act) Section 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. RA 8369 used the word exclusive in relation to the jurisdiction to cases on habeas corpus for the custody of children. Thus this would be upheld because this law came out in a latter date in reference to the contradicting law - BP 129 Section 9. The rule in statutory construction says that implied repeals are not favoured: The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to have known the existing laws on the subject and not have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on the subject.
HELD: NO.

It cannot be said that RA 7092 and BP 129 are absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not prohibit the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the custody of minors. Thus, the provisions of RA 8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 that family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue.