You are on page 1of 2

1

Republic v. Miller and substance in accordance with the law in
governance at the time it was filed, the court
Facts: On July 29, 1988, Spouses Miller, both acquires jurisdiction and retains it until it fully
American citizens, filed with the RTC, Angeles disposes of the case. To repeat, the jurisdiction
City a verified petition to adopt Michael Magno
of the court is determined by the statute in
Madayag, a Filipino child, under the provision of force at the time of the commencement of the
the Child and Youth Welfare Code which allows action. Such jurisdiction of a court, whether in
aliens to adopt. The natural parents executed criminal or civil cases, once it attaches cannot
affidavits giving their irrevocable consent to the be ousted by a subsequent happenings or
adoption and the DSWD recommended events, although of a character which would
approval of the petition on the basis of its have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
evaluation. On May 12, 1989, the trial court the first instance. Therefore, an alien who filed
rendered decision granting the petition for a petition for adoption before the effectivity of
adoption. On August 3, 1998, the Family Code the Family code, although denied the right to
became effective, prohibiting the adoption of a adopt under Art. 184 of said Code, may
Filipino child by aliens. The Solicitor General continue with his petition under the law
appealed to the granting of the petition for prevailing before the Family Code. Adoption
adoption by the RTC. statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the
Issue: Whether or not aliens may be allowed to interests and welfare of the child to be of
adopt a Filipino child when the petition for paramount consideration. They are designed to
adoption was filed prior to the effectivity of the provide homes, parental care and education for
Family Code prohibiting the same. unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and
give them the protection of society and family
Held: Yes. An alien qualified to adopt under the in the person of the adopter, as well as childless
Child and Youth Welfare Code, which was in couples or persons to experience the joy of
force at the time of the filing of the petition, parenthood and give them legally a child in the
acquired a vested right which could not be person of the adopted for the manifestation of
affected by the subsequent enactment of a new their natural parent instincts. Every reasonable
law disqualifying him. The enactment of the intendment should be sustained to promote
Family Code, effective August 3, 1988, will not and fulfill these noble and compassionate
impair the right of respondents who are aliens objectives of the law.
to adopt a Filipino child because the right has
become vested at the time of filing of the Madrinan v. Madrinan
petition for adoption and shall be governed by Special Proceedings – Court of Appeals and
the law then in force. A vested right is one Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with
whose existence, effectivity and extent does not the family courts of Habeas Corpus involving
depend upon events foreign to the will of the
custody of minors)
holder. Vested rights include not only legal or
equitable title to the enforcement of a demand, Facts: Petitioner and respondent were married,
but also an exemption from new obligations and after a bitter quarrel, petitioner left the
created after the right has vested. As long as conjugal abode bringing with him their three
the petition for adoption was sufficient in form

Held: Yes. Court of Appeals. The writ shall be enforceable Petitioner filed a memorandum alleging that within its judicial region to which the Family respondent was unfit to take custody of their Court belongs. or with petition for habeas corpus filed by respondent. ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in a previous jurisprudence that The Court of Appeals should has cognizance of this case since there is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors. Issue: WON the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors. 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. if so granted. 2004) in Re: Rule on Laguna subsequently. family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court. respondent was entitled to custody of the minors. involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court. any of its members and.M. the writ The Court of Appeals rendered a decision shall be enforceable anywhere in the asserting its authority to take cognizance and Philippines. that under the Family Code. The concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court with family courts in said cases was further affirmed by A. 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. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. children and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section xxx xxx xxx 5(b) of RA 8369. their education and deprived them of their – A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus mother’s care. No. 2 sons (2 of which are minors) to Albay and to 03-03-04-SC (April 22. . Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors which provides Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus in that: the Court of Appeals for their their 2 minor sons on the ground that petitioner’s act disrupted Section 20.