Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Thornton Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chanyeol Park
    1) The document discusses a case regarding a petition for habeas corpus filed by a petitioner seeking the return of his daughter from his estranged wife. 2) The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that under the Family Courts Act (RA 8369) family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions involving child custody. 3) However, the Supreme Court held that a literal interpretation granting exclusive jurisdiction to family courts would negate policies protecting children's rights. The laws must be interpreted harmoniously and family courts have concurrent rather than exclusive jurisdiction with appellate courts over such cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Thornton Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chanyeol Park
    64 views1 page
    1) The document discusses a case regarding a petition for habeas corpus filed by a petitioner seeking the return of his daughter from his estranged wife. 2) The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that under the Family Courts Act (RA 8369) family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions involving child custody. 3) However, the Supreme Court held that a literal interpretation granting exclusive jurisdiction to family courts would negate policies protecting children's rights. The laws must be interpreted harmoniously and family courts have concurrent rather than exclusive jurisdiction with appellate courts over such cases.

    Original Title

    248124546-Thornton-Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The document discusses a case regarding a petition for habeas corpus filed by a petitioner seeking the return of his daughter from his estranged wife. 2) The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that under the Family Courts Act (RA 8369) family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions involving child custody. 3) However, the Supreme Court held that a literal interpretation granting exclusive jurisdiction to family courts would negate policies protecting children's rights. The laws must be interpreted harmoniously and family courts have concurrent rather than exclusive jurisdiction with appellate courts over such cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    64 views1 page

    Thornton Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chanyeol Park
    1) The document discusses a case regarding a petition for habeas corpus filed by a petitioner seeking the return of his daughter from his estranged wife. 2) The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that under the Family Courts Act (RA 8369) family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions involving child custody. 3) However, the Supreme Court held that a literal interpretation granting exclusive jurisdiction to family courts would negate policies protecting children's rights. The laws must be interpreted harmoniously and family courts have concurrent rather than exclusive jurisdiction with appellate courts over such cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Thornton vs. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598 Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Court.

    – The Family Courts


    August 16, 2004, J. Corona shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide
    the following cases:
    Facts: Petitioner, an American, and respondent, a Filipino, were xxx xxx xxx
    married in Manila. A year later, respondent gave birth to a baby girl. b. Petition for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
    However, after three years, respondent grew restless and bored as a plain relation to the latter.
    housewife. She wanted to return to her old job as a "guest relations officer"
    in a nightclub, with the freedom to go out with her friends. Whenever Issue: WON there is an implied repeal of RA 7902 by RA 8369.
    petitioner was out of the country, respondent was also often out with her
    friends, leaving her daughter in the care of the househelp. Held: Language is rarely so free from ambiguity as to be incapable
    of being used in more than one sense. Sometimes, what the legislature
    Petitioner admonished respondent about her irresponsibility but she actually had in mind is not accurately reflected in the language of a statute,
    continued her carefree ways. On December 7, 2001, respondent left the and its literal interpretation may render it meaningless, lead to absurdity,
    family home with her daughter Sequiera without notifying her husband. She injustice or contradiction. In the case at bar, a literal interpretation of the
    told the servants that she was bringing Sequiera to Purok Marikit, Sta. word "exclusive" will result in grave injustice and negate the policy "to
    Clara, Lamitan, Basilan Province. protect the rights and promote the welfare of children" under the Constitution
    and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This mandate
    Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the designated Family must prevail over legal technicalities and serve as the guiding principle in
    Court in Makati City but this was dismissed, presumably because of the construing the provisions of RA 8369
    allegation that the child was in Basilan. Petitioner then went to Basilan to Moreover, settled is the rule in statutory construction that implied
    ascertain the whereabouts of respondent and their daughter. However, he repeals are not favored:
    did not find them there and the barangay office of Sta. Clara, Lamitan,
    3
    Basilan, issued a certification that respondent was no longer residing there. The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear
    finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied repeal
    Petitioner gave up his search when he got hold of respondent’s may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et
    cellular phone bills showing calls from different places such as Cavite, concordare leqibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute
    Nueva Ecija, Metro Manila and other provinces. Petitioner then filed another must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to
    petition for habeas corpus, this time in the Court of Appeals which could form a uniform system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the
    issue a writ of habeas corpus enforceable in the entire country. legislature should be presumed to have known the existing laws on
    the subject and not have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all
    However, the petition was denied by the Court of Appeals on the doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts
    ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the case. It ruled that since RA should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws
    8369 (The Family Courts Act of 1997) gave family courts exclusive original on the subject."
    jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus, it impliedly repealed RA 7902
    (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and Batas The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the
    Pambansa 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980): 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
    Under Sec. 9 (1), BP 129 (1981) the Intermediate Appellate Court that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092 and BP 129 are absolutely
    (now Court of Appeals) has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas incompatible since RA 8369 does not prohibit the Court of Appeals and the
    corpus whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. This Supreme Court from issuing writs of habeas corpus in cases involving the
    conferment of jurisdiction was re-stated in Sec. 1, RA 7902 (1995), custody of minors. Thus, the provisions of RA 8369 must be read in
    an act expanding the jurisdiction of this Court. This jurisdiction finds harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 ― that family courts have concurrent
    its procedural expression in Sec. 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for
    In 1997, RA 8369 otherwise known as Family Courts Act was habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue.
    enacted. It provides:
    Petition granted.

    You might also like