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. G.R. No. 95574
August 16, 1991

Randolph C. Parcasio for petitioners.

 MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:p

Questions of jurisdiction of the Shari'a District Court, and of venue, in an intestate proceeding are herein
raised.

Involved is the intestate estate of the late Jamiri Musa, a Muslim, who passed away on 31 December
1987. He had six (6) wives, three (3) of whom he later divorced, and twenty three (23) children. He had
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 among those he divorced,
while private respondent Hadji Jalai a ABDURAHIM is one of the three (3) surviving widows, RIZAL
Musa and BASSER Musa are two (2) of his sons.

On 7 July 1989, 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 (SDC Spec. Proceedings No. 89-19)
(the Intestate Case). That Court embraces the province of Maguindanao within its jurisdiction but not the
provinces of Davao del Sur and Oriental.

The Petition averred that the decedent Jamiri Musa a resident of Linao, Upi, Maguindanao, left various
properties located in the provinces of Maguindanao (184 hectares), Davao del Sur (61 hectares), and
Davao Oriental (207 hectares). Aside from the settlement of the vast estate, also prayed for was the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets of the decedent and ABDURAHIM and the segregation and
turn-over to the latter of her one-half (1/2) share.

Appearing as oppositors were: Petitioners WAHIDA and SALMA, the divorced wives, who also claim to
be widows of the deceased: RIZAL, Putih Musa, and Erum Musa, children of WAHIDA with the
decedent; and BASSER, another son. They alleged that venues was improperly said and that the
properties of the decedent located outside Aguinaldo were beyond the jurisdiction of the Shari'a District.
Court, Fifth Shari'a District.

Finding the Joint Petition to be sufficient in form and substance, Respondent Judge issued the Order of
Publication on 1 July 1989 and initially set the case for hearing on 18 September 1989.

All interested parties were duly represented during the hearing on said date where petitioners, through
counsel, manifested their desire to have the case amicably settled, Respondent Judo "in the interest of
peace and harmony among the heirs of the deceased Jamiri Musa," appointed the following as Special
Administrators: ABDURAHIM, for all properties situated in Maguindanao; RIZAL. for all properties
situated in Davao Oriental; and BASSER. for all properties situated in Davao del Sul.

However, on 4 October 1989, ABDURAHIM, in her manifestation and Motion to Cite for Contempt,"
accused BASSER, among others, of having allegedly fired upon the house of her son in-law in
Maguindanao on 21 September 1989.
Whereupon, on 13 October 1989, an "Opposition to Petition for Administration and Liquidation of
Conjugal Partnership" was filed by Petitioners, alleging that ABDURAHIM was never legally married to
the decedent and, as such, there was "nothing to support her claim" of having had a conjugal partnership
with the latter; and that venue was improperly laid. Petitioners also asked that RIZAL be issued Letters of
Administration instead.

In her Reply, filed on 25 October 1989, ABDURAHIM averred that, her marriage to the decedent was
admitted by the latter in various Deeds of Sale he had signed, which were presented as documentary
evidence. Since there was no amicable settlement reached, hearings on the Joint Petition were conducted,
commencing on 27 December 1989.

On 16 May 1990, Respondent Judge, issued an Order appointing ABDURAHIM as Regular

In the interim, Respondent Judge issued an Amended Order, dated 4 June 1990, incorporating the
testimonies of the two (2) other witnesses presented by Petitioners, which were omitted in the Order,
dated 16 May 1990. Otherwise, the appointment of ABDURAHIM as Regular Administratrix was
maintained.

On 10 August 1990, Petitioners filed a "Motion for Reconsideration With Motion to Dismiss," raising
once again, mainly the questions of venue and of jurisdiction of the respondent Court over the real
properties of the decedent situated in the provinces of Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental.

Respondent Judge denied both Motions and upheld the Court's jurisdiction in his Order, dated 22 August
1990. Hence, the elevation of the instant Petition for Prohibition before this Court seeking to enjoin
respondent Judge Corocoy D. Moson, presiding over the Shari'a District Court, Fifth Shari'a District, from
further taking action on the "Joint Petition ."

Petitioners take the position that Respondent Judge should have dismissed the Intestate Case for lack of
jurisdiction and for improper venue. Private respondent maintains the contrary.

We rule against Petitioners.

Pres. Decree 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. Thus:

Art. 143. Original Jurisdiction.—The Shari'a District Court shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estate of deceased
Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment of
administrators or executors regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of the
property. (Chapter 1, Title I, Book IV, par. (b), (Emphasis supplied).
Since the disposition, distribution and settlement of the estate of a deceased Muslim is, in fact, involved
herein, the Joint Petition was correctly filed before the Shari'a District Court, Fifth Shari'a District.

In invoking improper venue, however, petitioners call attention to the Rules of Court mandating that:

Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled.—If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved,
or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in
the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a
foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. The
court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so
far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location his estate,
shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the
original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. (Rule 73).
(Emphasis supplied).

It is then 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.

At this juncture, it should be recalled that the residence of the deceased in an estate proceeding is not an
element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely of venue. The law of jurisdiction confers upon
Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) jurisdiction over all probate cases independently of
the place of residence of the deceased (In the matter of the intestate estate of Kaw Singco, 74 Phil. 239
[1943]).

To all appearances, the decedent was a resident of both Linao, Upi, Maguindanao, and Davao City. In
fact, in various Deeds of Sale presented as evidence by the parties, the decedent alternately stated his
place of residence as either Linao, Upi,Maguindanao which is the residence of ABDURAHIM, or Davao
City, where Petitioners reside. As this Court held in Uytengsu v. Republic, 95 Phil. 890 (1954), "a man
can have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of
residence." Venue, therefore, ordinarily could be at either place of the decedent's residence, i.e.,
Maguindanao or Davao City, but for the provisions of the Muslim Code vesting exclusive original
jurisdiction, in matters of disposition and settlement of estates of deceased Muslims, in Shari'a District
Courts (supra).

But petitioners also contend that the Shari'a District Court, Fifth Shari'a District, presided over by
respondent Judge, has no territorial jurisdiction over properties of the decedent situated in the provinces
of Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental, citing as statutory authority therefor the Code of Muslim Personal
Laws, which provides:

Art. 138. Shari'a judicial districts.—Five special judicial districts, each to have one
Shari'a District Court presided over by one judge, are constituted as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) The Fifth Shari'a District, the Provinces of Maguindanao, North Cotabato and Sultan
Kudarat, and the City of Cotabato.
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]). (Emphasis supplied)

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 proper- ties of the decedent.

A contrary ruling would only result in multiplicity of suits, to the detriment of the expeditious settlement
of estate proceedings (See Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo, 30 June 1988,163 SCRA 237 [1988]). Besides, the
judgment that may be rendered by the Shari'a District Court, Fifth Shari'a District, may be executed in
other provinces where the rest of the real estate is situated.

When an action covers various parcels of land situated in different provinces, venue may
be laid in the Court of First Instance of any of said provinces, and the judgment rendered
therein may be executed in other provinces where the rest of the real estate is situated
(National Bank v. Barreto, 52 Phil. 818 [1929]; Monte Piedad v. Rodrigo, 56 Phil. 310
[1931]; El Hogar Filipino v. Seva ,57 Phil. 573 [L-1932]; Bank of P.I. v. Green, 57 Phil.
712 [1932]).

The Rules of Court likewise provide that the Court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate
of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts(Rule 73, sec. 1). There should
be no impediment to the application of said Rules as they apply suppletorily to the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws, there being nothing inconsistent with the provisions of the latter statute (Article 187 of
said Code).

And while Rule 73 provides that "the jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of
residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding
except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the
record," we have taken cognizance of this Petition for Prohibition considering that the jurisdiction of a
Shari'a District Court, a relatively new Court in our judicial system, has been challenged.

WHEREFORE, this Petition for Prohibition is DENIED, and the case hereby REMANDED to the Shari'a
District Court, Fifth Shari'a District, for continuation of the intestate proceedings. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.