CASE: Thornton v Thornton AUTHOR: Frances Ko

GR NO: 154598 Pages (Full Text): 6

DATE: August 16, 2004 NOTES: If the CA do not have authority -> Thornton would
TOPIC: Repeal of Laws have to file a report in every single Family Court in the
PONENTE: J. Corona Philippines
FACTS:
Richard Thornton and Adelfa Thornton were married and had a daughter named Sequeira Thornton. Three years into the
marriage, Adelfa grew bored as a housewife and wanted to return to her old job as a GRO in a nightclub. One day, she
left the family home with their daughter and told the servants that they were going to Basilan. Richard filed a petition fpr
habeas corpus in the Family Court in Makati but was dismissed because the child was in Basilan. When he went to
Basilan, Adelfa was no longer residing there. He filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA which could issue a writ of
habeas corpus enforceable in the entire country. The petition was denied by the CA on the ground that it did not have
jurisdiction over the case since RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) gave family courts exclusive jurisdiction over
petitions for habeas corpus, it impliedly repealed RA 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the CA) and BP 129 (The
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).

ISSUE(S): WON the CA has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in light of the
provision in RA 8369 giving Family Courts exclusive jurisdiction over such petitions
HELD: Yes
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The petition for habeas corpus in CA-G.R.-SP-No.
70501 is hereby REINSTATED and REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, Sixteenth Division.
RATIO:
There is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors.
The reasoning of the CA cannot be affirmed for it will result in an iniquitous situation which would leave individuals, who
do not know the whereabouts of the minors they are looking for, without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their
children. They would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. This lack of recourse could not have been the intention of the lawmakers when
they passed RA 8369, under which the avowed policy of the State is to protect the rights and promote the welfare of
children.

There is no implied repeal.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE (Related to the Topic):

NCC Art. 7, par. 1: Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be
excused by disuse, orcustom or practice to the contrary.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):