PFR Cases - Day 2

G.R. No.
95574 August 16, 1991
HADJI WAHIDA MUSA, HADJI SALMA MUSA, RIZAL MUSA and BASSER
MUSA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COROCOY D. MOSON, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Shari'a
District Court, Fifth Shari'a District, Cotabato City and HADJI JAHARA
ABDURAHIM, respondents.
FACTS:
 Jamiri Musa, a Muslim, passed away and left extensive real and personal
properties located in the provinces of Maguindanao, Davao del Sur and
Davao Oriental.
 Petitioners, Hadji WAHIDA Musa and Hadji SALMA Musa, are his
divorced wives,
 Private respondent Hadji Jaharah ABDURAHIM is one of his three (3)
surviving widows.
 Respondent ABDURAHIM filed a "Joint Petition for the Administration
and Settlement of the Inestate Estate of the Late Jamiri Musa and
Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership," before the Shari'a District Court,
Fifth Sharia's District, with station at Cotabato City.
 Petitioners WAHIDA and SALMA, the divorced wives, who also claim to
be widows of the deceased alleged that venues was improperly laid and
that the properties of the decedent located outside Aguinaldo were
beyond the jurisdiction of the Shari'a District. Court, Fifth Shari'a
District.
 Petitioners also claimed that since the residence of the decedent at the
time of his death was actually in Davao City, not Maguindanao, as
averred by ABDUHARIM, the proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of the
Shari'a District Court, Fifth Shari'a District, and that venue is more
properly laid in Davao City before the Regional Trial Court since there are
no Shari'a District Courts therein.
ISSUE:
i. Was the Joint Petition correctly filed before the Shari'a District Court,
Fifth Shari'a District?
ii. Does the Shari'a District Court, Fifth Shari'a District, presided over by
respondent Judge, has territorial jurisdiction over properties of the
decedent situated in the provinces of Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental?
RULING:
i. Yes, the joint petition was correctly filed at Shari'a District Court,
Fifth Shari'a District.
Art. 143.(b) of PD No. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim

Personal Laws of the Philippines, explicitly provides that exclusive
original jurisdiction, in matters of settlement of the estate of deceased
Muslims, belong to Shari'a District Courts. Here, the Joint Petition
was correctly filed before the Shari'a District Court, Fifth Shari'a
District because what is involved here is the disposition, distribution
and settlement of the estate of a deceased Muslim.
ii. Yes, it has territorial jurisdiction over properties of the decedent

situated in the provinces of Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental.
Indeed, Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental are not comprised within
the Fifth Shari'a District. In fact, those provinces are outside the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao created by Republic Act No.
6734, its Organic Act. But as stated in that law, "the Shari'a District
Court and the Shari'a Circuit Courts created under existing laws shall
continue to function as provided therein." (Art. IX, Sec. 13).
Additionally, the same Organic Act explicitly provides;
(4) Except in cases of successional rights, the regular courts shall

acquire jurisdiction over controversies involving real property
outside the area of autonomy. (Art. IX, Section 17[4]).
Since the subject intestate proceeding concerns successional rights,

coupled with the fact that the decedent was also a resident of Linao,
Upi, Maguindanao, owning real estate property located in that
province, venue has been properly laid with the Shari'a District Court,
Fifth Shari'a District, winch is vested with territorial jurisdiction over
Maguindanao, notwithstanding the location in different provinces of
the other real properties of the decedent.
G.R. No. 82077 August 16, 1991
MIDSAPAK TAMPAR, MAISALAM TAMPAR, HEIRS OF GAMPONG TAMPAR,

represented by HADJI MUSTAPHA GAMPONG and HEIRS OF PAGAYAWAN
TAMPAR, represented by SUMAPI TAMPAR, petitioners,
vs.
ESMAEL USMAN, MOHAMAD DATUMANONG, HADJI SALIK NUR AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF COTABATO, respondents.
FACTS:
 It was alleged that an "Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with

Simultaneous Sale" was executed between petitioners and respondent
Esmael Usman. Petitioners sought the annulment of the same.
 After series of denials by both parties, and the plaintiff having no witness
to prove their claims agaisnt respondent, the plaintiffs challenged
respondent Usman to take an oath ("yamin") declaring that there is no
truth to the claim of forgery brought against him.
 Respondent Usman opposed the challenge of petitioners, arguing that
before he may be required to take the oath, petitioners, as the mudda-i
should first take the oath, since they have no witnesses at all.
 The Court then directed respondent Usman to take the oath, which the
latter eventually complied with.
 Having taken the oath as demanded by petitioners, judgment was
rendered in favor of respondents, and the complaint against them was
dismissed.
 Petitioners now assail the decision of the Shari'a court as having been
rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUES:
whether or not the Shari'a court committed a grave abuse of discretion in

dismissing the complaint of petitioners by virtue of the "yamin" taken by the
defendant, namely, respondent Usman.
RULING:
No, it did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the

complaint.
The Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint not because of the
"yamin" taken by the respondent Usman but on the basis of Section 1, Rule
131 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines. Such Rule was applied in a
suppletory manner in this case. It provides that each party must prove his own
affirmative allegations. When the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) failed to adduce
any evidence to support the complaint, then the complaint must be dismissed.
Thus, on this basis, the dismissal of the complaint by the Shari'a court
in this case should be upheld, but not because of the "yamin" taken by the
respondent Usman.
NOTE:
Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Shari'a courts

aforecited provides that if the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the
defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall be rendered in his favor by
the Court. On the other hand, should defendant refuse to take an oath,
plaintiff may affirm his claim under oath, in which case judgment shall be
rendered in his favor.
Said provision effectively deprives a litigant of his constitutional right to due

process. It denies a party his right to confront the witnesses against him and to
cross-examine them. It should have no place even in the Special Rules of
Procedure of the Shari'a courts of the country.
G.R. No. 126603. June 29, 1998
ESTRELLITA J. TAMANO, Petitioner, v. HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ,

Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 89, Quezon City, HAJA PUTRI ZORAYDA A.
TAMANO, ADIB A. TAMANO and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
FACTS:
 Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Tamano) married private

respondent Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) in civil rites;
 Before his death, he was also able to marry petitioner Estrellita J.
Tamano (Estrellita) in civil rites in Malabang, Lanao del Sur.
 Private respondent Zorayda and her son Adib A. Tamano (Adib) filed a
Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Tamano and Estrellita
on the ground that it was bigamous.
 Estrellita filed a motion to dismiss. She said that the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City has no jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the
action. She alleged that "only a party to the marriage" could file an action
for annulment of marriage against the other spouse, hence, it was only
Tamano who could file an action for annulment of their marriage.
 Petitioner likewise contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were both
Muslims and married in Muslim rites the jurisdiction to hear and try the
instant case was vested in the sharia courts pursuant to Art. 155 of the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
 The lower court denied her motion to dismiss
ISSUES:
1. Whether the sharia court and not the Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action.
2. Which code should apply in the instant case
RULING:
1. The RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
Under The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Regional Trial

Courts have jurisdiction over all actions involving the contract of
marriage and marital relations. Personal actions, such as the instant
complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage, may be commenced
and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides,
or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at
the election of the plaintiff. There should be no question by now that
what determines the nature of an action and correspondingly the
court which has jurisdiction over it are the allegations made by the
plaintiff in this case.
In this present case, it was never mentioned whether Estrellita and
Tamano were married under Muslim laws or PD No. 1083.
Interestingly, Estrellita never stated in her Motion to Dismiss that she
and Tamano were married under Muslim laws. That she was in fact
married to Tamano under Muslim laws was first mentioned only in
her Motion for Reconsideration.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the

allegations of the complaint as the latter comprises a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs causes of
action.
2. The Civil Code is applicable in the instant case.
Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not provide for a situation where the
parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites. Consequently, the
sharia courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction
when it comes to marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim
laws. Consequently, the Regional Trial Courts are not divested of their
general original jurisdiction under Sec. 19, par. (6) of BP Blg. 129
which provides – Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. - Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: x x x (6) In all
cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions x x x x

PFR Cases - Day 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PFR Cases - Day 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PFR Cases - Day 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

95574 August 16, 1991

Art. 143.(b) of PD No. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim

ii. Yes, it has territorial jurisdiction over properties of the decedent

Additionally, the same Organic Act explicitly provides;

(4) Except in cases of successional rights, the regular courts shall

Since the subject intestate proceeding concerns successional rights,

MIDSAPAK TAMPAR, MAISALAM TAMPAR, HEIRS OF GAMPONG TAMPAR,

 It was alleged that an "Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with

whether or not the Shari'a court committed a grave abuse of discretion in

No, it did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the

Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Shari'a courts

Said provision effectively deprives a litigant of his constitutional right to due

ESTRELLITA J. TAMANO, Petitioner, v. HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ,

 Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Tamano) married private

 The lower court denied her motion to dismiss

1. The RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Under The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Regional Trial

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the

2. The Civil Code is applicable in the instant case.

You might also like