19.

Madrinan vs Madrinan
[G.R. Number 159374 July 12, 2007]

FACTS:
 Felipe and Francisca were married on July 1993 in Paranaque.
 They have three sons (Ronnick, Philip and Francis) and one daughter.
 In 2002, after a quarrel, Felipe left their conjugal home and took their three sons with him.
 He went to Albay then to Sta. Rosa.
 Francisca asked help from her parents-in-law and the Lupong Tagapamayapa in their barangay but
nothing happened.

PROCEDURE:
FRANCISCA FILED A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 Francisca claimed that the education of their children was being disrupted and that they were being
deprived of their mother’s care.
 Felipe, at first, agreed to give the custody of their children to Francisca but later had a change of heart
and filed a memorandum.
 He claimed that it was Francisca who first left the conjugal home which lead him to go to Sta.
Rosa.
 He claimed that Francisca is unfit to take care of the children because of her habitual drinking in
beer houses and negligence in doing her responsibilities as a mother.
 He also presented certificates of enrolment for their two sons, claiming that their education is not
being compromised.
 He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that Section 5(b) of RA 8369
vested Family Courts with exclusive original jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases filed for
children.
 Francisca then alleged that it was Felipe who was an alcoholic and that she only left the conjugal home
because she was driven out by Felipe.
 The Court of Appeals asserted its authority to take cognizance of the petition.
 They ruled that Philip and Francis, being only six and four years old, should be taken care of by
their mother.
 With regards to Ronnick, being already eight, his custody should be determined in a proper
proceeding in the family court.
 Motion for reconsideration of Felipe was denied.

FELIPE FILED THIS PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

 He challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals siting Section 5(b) of RA 8369
 Section 5(b) The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
following cases: xxx (b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
relation to the latter.

ISSUE/S: WON the Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Habeas Corpus cases of minors. -NO
19. Madrinan vs Madrinan
[G.R. Number 159374 July 12, 2007]

RULING:
 It was already resolved in the case of Thornton vs. Thorntion that RA 8369 did not duvest the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody
of minors.
 The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court to issue habeas corpus relating to the custody of minors.
 RA 8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 (Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals) and BP 129.
 The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over petitions for Habeas Corpus was further affirmed by A.M.
No 03-03-03-SC xxx Section 20. 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 The Petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if granted, the writ shall be enforceable
anywhere in the Philippines.
 If a minor is being transferred from one place to another, and the Family Court have exclusive
jurisdiction, the petitioner would have no remedy.
 Moreover, a careful reading of Section 5(b) of RA 8369 reveals that family courts are vested
with original exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases, not in habeas corpus cases. Writs of habeas
corpus which may be issued exclusively by family courts under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 pertain
to the ancillary remedy that may be availed of in conjunction with a petition for custody of
minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. In other words, the issuance of the writ is merely
ancillary to the custody case pending before the family court. The writ must be issued by the
same court to avoid splitting of jurisdiction, conflicting decisions, interference by a co-equal
court and judicial instability.

FALLO: Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED