Madrinan vs.

Madrinan, 527 SCRA

Facts: Petitioner and respondent were married, and after a bitter quarrel, petitioner left the
conjugal abode bringing with him their three sons (2 of which are minors) to Albay and to
Laguna subsequently.

Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for their their 2 minor sons
on the ground that petitioner’s act disrupted their education and deprived them of their mother’s
care.

Petitioner filed a memorandum alleging that respondent was unfit to take custody of their
children and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b)
of RA 8369, family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition
for habeas corpus filed by respondent.

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision asserting its authority to take cognizance and ruling,
that under the Family Code, respondent was entitled to custody of the minors.

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.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of
minors.

Held: Yes. 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. 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.

The concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court with family courts in
said cases 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 which provides
that: