FIRST DIVISION
FELIPE N. MADRIÑAN, G.R. No. 159374
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,*
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA and
GARCIA,**
JJ.
FRANCISCA
R. MADRIÑAN,
Respondent. Promulgated:
July
12, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
When a family breaks up, the children
are always the victims. The ensuing battle for custody of the minor children is
not only a thorny issue but also a highly sensitive and heart-rending affair. Such
is the case here. Even the usually technical subject of jurisdiction became emotionally
charged.
Petitioner
Felipe N. Madriñan and respondent Francisca R. Madriñan were married on July 7,
1993 in Parañaque City. They resided in San Agustin Village, Brgy. Moonwalk,
Parañaque City.
Their union was blessed with three
sons and a daughter: Ronnick, born on January 30, 1994; Phillip, born on
November 19, 1996; Francis Angelo, born on May 12, 1998 and Krizia Ann, born on
December 12, 2000.
After
a bitter quarrel on May 18, 2002, petitioner allegedly left their conjugal
abode and took their three sons with him to Ligao City, Albay and subsequently
to Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Respondent sought the help of her parents and
parents-in-law to patch things up between her and petitioner to no avail. She
then brought the matter to the Lupong Tagapamayapa in their barangay but
this too proved futile.
Thus respondent filed a petition for habeas
corpus of Ronnick, Phillip and Francis Angelo in the Court of Appeals,
alleging that petitioner’s act of leaving the conjugal dwelling and going to
Albay and then to Laguna disrupted the education of their children and deprived
them of their mother’s care. She prayed that petitioner be ordered to appear
and produce their sons before the court and to explain why they should not be
returned to her custody.
Petitioner
and respondent appeared at the hearing on September 17, 2002. They initially
agreed that petitioner would return the custody of their three sons to respondent.
Petitioner, however, had a change of heart[1]
and decided to file a memorandum.
On
September 3, 2002, petitioner filed his memorandum[2]
alleging that respondent was unfit to take custody of their three sons because
she was habitually drunk, frequently went home late at night or in the wee
hours of the morning, spent much of her time at a beer house and neglected her
duties as a mother. He claimed that, after their squabble on May 18, 2002, it
was respondent who left, taking their daughter with her. It was only then that he
went to Sta. Rosa, Laguna where he worked as a tricycle driver. He submitted a
certification from the principal of the Dila Elementary School in Sta. Rosa,
Laguna that Ronnick and Phillip were enrolled there. He also questioned the jurisdiction
of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 (otherwise
known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997”) family courts have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas corpus filed by
respondent.[3]
For her part, respondent averred that
she did not leave their home on May 18, 2002 but was driven out by petitioner.
She alleged that it was petitioner who was an alcoholic, gambler and drug
addict. Petitioner’s alcoholism and drug addiction impaired his mental
faculties, causing him to commit acts of violence against her and their
children. The situation was aggravated by the fact that their home was adjacent
to that of her in-laws who frequently meddled in their personal problems.[4]
On October 21, 2002, the Court of
Appeals[5]
rendered a decision[6]
asserting its authority to take cognizance of the petition and ruling that, under
Article 213 of the Family Code, respondent was entitled to the custody of Phillip
and Francis Angelo who were at that time aged six and four, respectively,
subject to the visitation rights of petitioner. With respect to Ronnick who was
then eight years old, the court ruled that his custody should be determined by
the proper family court in a special proceeding on custody of minors under Rule
99 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration
of the Court of Appeals decision but it was denied. Hence, this recourse.
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. He invokes Section 5(b) of RA 8369:
Section 5. Jurisdiction of Family
Courts. – The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to
hear and decide the following cases:
x x x
x x x x x x
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of
children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
x x x x x x x x x
Petitioner is wrong.
In
Thornton v. Thornton,[7]
this Court resolved the issue of the Court of Appeals’ 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:
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.
x x x x x x x x x
We rule therefore that 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.
x x x x x x x x x
The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no
manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Supreme
Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the custody of minors.
Further, it cannot be said that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092 [An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals] and BP 129 [The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980] are absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not
prohibit the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court from issuing writs of habeas
corpus in cases involving 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.[8]
(emphases supplied)
The
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over petitions for habeas corpus
was further affirmed by A.M. No. 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:
In any case, whatever uncertainty
there was has been settled with the adoption of A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC Re: Rule
on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors.
Section 20 of the rule 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.
x x x
x x x x x x
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. The writ may be made returnable
to a Family Court or to any regular court within the region where the
petitioner resides or where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on
the merits.
From the foregoing, there is no doubt
that the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction
with family courts in habeas corpus cases where the custody of minors is
involved.[9]
(emphases supplied)
We
note that after petitioner moved out of their Parañaque residence on May 18,
2002, he twice transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial regions.
This situation is what the Thornton interpretation of RA 8369’s
provision on jurisdiction precisely addressed:
[The reasoning that by giving family courts exclusive
jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, the lawmakers intended them to be
the sole courts which can issue writs of habeas corpus] will result in
an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like [respondent] without legal
recourse in obtaining custody of their children. 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, which seems to be the case here, the
petitioner in a habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy.
This lack of recourse could not have been the intention of the lawmakers when
they passed [RA 8369].[10]
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.
The rule therefore is: when by law
jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by
such court or officer.[11]
Once a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it does
so to the exclusion of all other courts, including related incidents and
ancillary matters.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
(On leave)
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
(No part)
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
* On leave.
** No part.
[1] Both parties accused each other’s parents of constant meddling in their family life.
[2] Rollo, pp. 44-56.
[3] Id.
[4] Id., pp. 37-43.
[5] First Division.
[6] Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador with Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (now a member of the Supreme Court) and Bernardo P. Abesamis (retired) concurring. Rollo, pp. 19-26.
[7] G.R. No. 154598, 16 August 2004, 436 SCRA 550.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Section 6, Rule 135, Rules of Court.