1
Republic v. Miller
Facts: On July 29, 1988, Spouses Miller, both
American citizens, filed with the RTC, Angeles
City a verified petition to adopt Michael Magno
Madayag, a Filipino child, under the provision of
the Child and Youth Welfare Code which allows
aliens to adopt. The natural parents executed
affidavits giving their irrevocable consent to the
adoption and the DSWD recommended
approval of the petition on the basis of its
evaluation. On May 12, 1989, the trial court
rendered decision granting the petition for
adoption. On August 3, 1998, the Family Code
became effective, prohibiting the adoption of a
Filipino child by aliens. The Solicitor General
appealed to the granting of the petition for
adoption by the RTC.
Issue: Whether or not aliens may be allowed to
adopt a Filipino child when the petition for
adoption was filed prior to the effectivity of the
Family Code prohibiting the same.
Held: Yes. An alien qualified to adopt under the
Child and Youth Welfare Code, which was in
force at the time of the filing of the petition,
acquired a vested right which could not be
affected by the subsequent enactment of a new
law disqualifying him. The enactment of the
Family Code, effective August 3, 1988, will not
impair the right of respondents who are aliens
to adopt a Filipino child because the right has
become vested at the time of filing of the
petition for adoption and shall be governed by
the law then in force. A vested right is one
whose existence, effectivity and extent does not
depend upon events foreign to the will of the
holder. Vested rights include not only legal or
equitable title to the enforcement of a demand,
but also an exemption from new obligations
created after the right has vested. As long as
the petition for adoption was sufficient in form
and substance in accordance with the law in
governance at the time it was filed, the court
acquires jurisdiction and retains it until it fully
disposes of the case. To repeat, the jurisdiction
of the court is determined by the statute in
force at the time of the commencement of the
action. Such jurisdiction of a court, whether in
criminal or civil cases, once it attaches cannot
be ousted by a subsequent happenings or
events, although of a character which would
have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
the first instance. Therefore, an alien who filed
a petition for adoption before the effectivity of
the Family code, although denied the right to
adopt under Art. 184 of said Code, may
continue with his petition under the law
prevailing before the Family Code. Adoption
statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the
interests and welfare of the child to be of
paramount consideration. They are designed to
provide homes, parental care and education for
unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and
give them the protection of society and family
in the person of the adopter, as well as childless
couples or persons to experience the joy of
parenthood and give them legally a child in the
person of the adopted for the manifestation of
their natural parent instincts. Every reasonable
intendment should be sustained to promote
and fulfill these noble and compassionate
objectives of the law.
Madrinan v. Madrinan
Special Proceedings – Court of Appeals and
Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with
the family courts of Habeas Corpus involving
custody of minors)
Facts: Petitioner and respondent were married,
and after a bitter quarrel, petitioner left the
conjugal abode bringing with him their three
 2

sons (2 of which are minors) to Albay and to
Laguna subsequently.
Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus in
the Court of Appeals for their their 2 minor sons
on the ground that petitioner’s act disrupted
their education and deprived them of their
mother’s care.
Petitioner filed a memorandum alleging that
respondent was unfit to take custody of their
children and questioned the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals claiming that under Section
5(b) of RA 8369, family courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
petition for habeas corpus filed by respondent.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision
asserting its authority to take cognizance and
ruling, that under the Family Code, respondent
was entitled to custody of the minors.
03-03-04-SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on
Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Relation to Custody of Minors which provides
that:
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus.
– A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus
involving custody of minors shall be filed with
the Family Court. The writ shall be enforceable
within its judicial region to which the Family
Court belongs.
xxx xxx xxx
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.

Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the

Court of Appeals over the petition for habeas
corpus and insists that jurisdiction over the case
is lodged in the family courts under RA 8369.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals has

jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving
custody of minors.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in a

previous jurisprudence that The Court of
Appeals should has cognizance of this case since
there is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its
jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas
corpus involving the custody of minors. RA 8369
did not divest the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas
corpus cases involving the custody of minors.

The concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of

Appeals and Supreme Court with family courts
in said cases was further affirmed by A.M. No.