Concurrent, not exclusive

This case of Pete and Carmen explains the exclusive original jurisdiction of Family Court to hear and decide petitions for habeas corpus in relation to Custody of Children under Republic Act 8369.

Pete and Carmen got married on July 7, 1993. Typical of marital unions, they started living happily and harmoniously in a conjugal house near Pete’s parents. Their union was blessed with three sons: Ron, Jun, Rico and a daughter, Carla.

But like most marriages, their relationship also had some rough sailing due to the usual marital spats. One of those quarrels turned so bitter that after almost nine years of marriage or on May 18, 2002, Pete left the conjugal abode with his three sons in tow, transferring from one province to another apparently to avoid being traced by Carmen.

Carmen sought the help of her parents and parents-in-law to patch things up between her and Pete but to no avail. She then brought the matter to the Lupon Tagapamayapa in their Barangay which proved to be futile. Finally she had to file a petition for habeas corpus of Ron, Jun and Rico who were then ages 8, 6, and 4 years respectively. Carmen alleged that Pete’s act of leaving conjugal dwelling and going to different places disrupted the education of their children and deprived them of their mother. She prayed that Pete be ordered to produce their sons before the court and explain why they should not be returned to her custody.

While initially Pete agreed to return custody of their sons to Carmen, he later changed his mind and fought it out. Pete and Carmen hurled accusations against each other, blamed one another for their breakup and pointed to each other as the one who left the conjugal dwelling. Pete claimed that Carmen was unfit to take care of their children because of her habitual drunkenness and frequent late night outs which are the same defects that Carmen attributed to Pete whom she claimed to be an alcoholic, a drug addict and prone to violence.

On October 21, 2002, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a decision granting custody of Jun and Rico who were then six and four years old respectively, to Carmen subject to visitation rights of Pete. With respect to Ron who was then eight years old, the CA ruled that his custody should be determined by the Family Court in a special proceeding on custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.

Pete questioned this ruling. He contended that the CA had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus as jurisdiction over the case is lodged in the Family Courts under R.A. 8369. Was Pete correct?

No. RA 8396 did not divest the CA and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors. The provisions of RA 8396 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the CA and the SC to issue said writ. Said law should be read in harmony with the provisions of RA 7092 (expanding the jurisdiction of the CA) and BP 129 (the Judiciary Reorganization ACT OF 1980) — that Family Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and the SC in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue. This is in fact affirmed by Administrative Circular 03-03-04-SC, dated April 22, 2004.

In this case, after Pete moved out of their residence on May 18, 2002, he twice transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial regions. By giving the family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases will result in an iniquitous situation leaving individuals like Carmen without legal recourse in obtaining custody of her 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. This lack of recourse could not have been the intention of RA 8396.

Moreover, under RA 8396, the 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 the Family Courts under said law pertain to the ancillary remedy that may be availed of in conjunction with the petition for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court (Madrinan vs. Madrinan, G.R. 159374, July 12, 2007).

* * *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]