Thornton vs.

Thornton (2004)

 FACTS:  
 
        Petitioner, an American, and respondent, a Filipino, were married on August 28, 1998 in Manila. They have a
daughter named Sequeira Jennifer Delle Francisco Thornton.
 
        After 3 years, respondent wanted to return to her old job as a “GRO” in a nightclub, with the freedom to go out
with her friends. Petitioner admonished respondent about her irresponsibility but she continued her carefree ways.

On December 7, 2001, respondent left the family home with her daughter without notifying her husband. She told the
servants that she was bringing their daughter to Basilan Province.
 
        Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Family Court in Makati City but was dismissed the child was in
Basilan. Petitioner then went to Basilan to find the respondent and their daughter. However, he did not find them
there. The barangay office issued a certification that the respondent is no longer living there.
 
        Petitioner then filed another petition for habeas corpus in the CA which could issue a writ of habeas corpus
enforceable in the entire country. It was denied because of lack of jurisdiction over the case. According to the CA, RA
8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) impliedly repealed RA 7902 and BP 129 (granted CA with jurisdiction to issue a writ
of HC WON in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

ISSUE: WON RA 8369 impliedly repealed RA 7902 and BP 129.

 
 
HELD: NO.

CA did not lose its jurisdiction to issue writs of HC involving the custody of minors. There is nothing in RA
8369 which revoked it of such jurisdiction. The word “exclusive” cannot be construed as automatic foreclosure of the
jurisdiction of other courts over HC cases involving minors. The jurisdiction of the CA and Family Court in the case at
bar is concurrent.  The Family Court can issue writs of HC enforceable only within its territorial jurisdiction. On the
other hand, the CA can issue the same writ enforceable throughout the Philippines in cases where the territorial
jurisdiction for the enforcement of the writ cannot be determined with certainty.

Literal interpretation of the word “exclusive” will result in grave injustice.

 
Implied repeals are not favoured. Provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent that it revoked the CA and SC’s
jurisdiction to issue writs of HC relating to custody of minors. RA 8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7902 and BP
129.