SHARIA COURT CASES

Jocelyn Rulona-Al Awadhi v. Hon. Abdulmajid J. Astih

GR. No. 81969

FACTS:
Petitioner Jocelyn Rulona-Al Awadhi, a Roman Catholic, and Respondent Nabil Al-
Awadhi, a Kuwaiti national, were married in Kuwait. The petitioner resides with their three
children in Sta. Cruz, Calape, Bohol, while the private respondent resides at Tagbiliran City.
Petitioner filed an action for support and guardianship of their three minor children in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2 in Tagbiliran City. Her husband, the defendant, filed in the same
court a motion to be allowed joint parental authority over the children. However, without waiting
for the order of the Tagbiliran Court, defendant filed a petition for custody and guardianship of
their children in the Fourth Sharia District Court in Marawi City, docketed therein as Special
Proceeding No. 011-87.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the said petition, which was then denied by the
Sharia District Court based on Sec. 13 (a) 0f the Special Rules of Procedure in the Sharia
Courts stating that the court shall not allow the filing of motion to dismiss or squash. She then
filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the order of the Sharia Judicial District Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sharia District Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
matter of the case.

HELD:
No. Art. 13 Title II of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines only applies
to marriages between Muslims or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and that it is
solemnized in the Philippines. The husband is not a Philippine Muslim, but a Kuwaiti national
and that his marriage with the petitioner was solemnized not in the Philippines but in Kuwait.
Moreover, Art. 3 of the Muslim Code is applicable only to Muslims, thus the applicayion of the
said Code to the Christian wife will be prejudicial to her. Lastly, the parties do not reside within
the Fourth Sharia District. Therefore, as nether the petitioner nor the private respondent and
their children live in or are members of these communities, they do not come within the ambit of
the Sharia Courts jurisdiction.
All the proceedings in Special Proceeding No. 011-87 of the Fourth Sharia District at
Marawi City are annulled and the petition therein is dismissed. Costs against the private
respondent.







Estrellita Tamano v. Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz
GR No. 126603

FACTS:
In 1959, Senator Tamano married private respondent Zorayda Tamano in civil rites. Prior
to his death in 1993, Tamano also married petitioner Estrellita Tamano in civil rites in Malabang,
Lanao del Sur.
Private respondent Zorayda, together with her son Adib Tamano, filed a Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Tamano and Estrellita on the ground that it was bigamous.
The entries on the marriage contract was claimed to be false and fraudulent.
Estrellita then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City has no jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action alleging that only a party to the
marriage could file an annulment against the other spouse. Petitioner also contended that since
Tamano and Zorayda were both Muslims and married in Muslim rites, the jurisdiction to hear
and try the case falls under the Sharia Courts pursuant to Art. 135 of the Code of Muslim.
RTC denied the petition and ruled that it has jurisdiction since Estrellita and Tamano
were married in accordance with the Civil Code and not exclusively under Presidential Decree
no. 1083. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for consolidation. It granted the
respondents motion to resolve the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
The CA ruled that the instant case would fall under the jurisdiction of the Sharia Courts
only when filed in places where there are such courts. Otherwise, the instant case could be filed
before the RTC.
The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sharia Court and not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over
the subject case and the nature of action.

HELD:
The court held that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the subject case. Based
on the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the RTCs have jurisdiction over all actions
involving the contract of marriage and marital relations.
A courts jurisdiction depends only upon the allegations of the complaint, not upon
defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration. Thus,
the court was not divested of jurisdiction to hear and try the instant case despite the allegation
that Estrellita and Tamano were likewise married in Muslim rites based on the motion for
reconsideration.
Assuming that the petitioner and Tamano were indeed married under Muslim laws, it
would still fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The Sharia Courts have no original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to
marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws.


Sultan Yahya Jerry M. Tomawis v. Hon. Rasad G. Balindong
GR No. 182434

FACTS:
Private respondents Amna A. Pumbaya, Jalilah A. Mangompia and Ramia A. Musor,
daughters of the late Acraman Radia, filed with the Sharia District Court an action for quieting
of title docketed as Civil Case No. 102-97 against Sultan Jerry Tomawis and Mangoda Radia.
The respondents alleged that, being the legal heirs of Acraman Radia, they were the absolute
owners of the lot subject of the complaint; Tomawis assumed ownership of the said property on
the claim that he purchased the same from Mangoda Radia, who claimed that he inherited it from
his late father; in 1996, they were informed that the small houses built on the said land with their
permission were ordered by Tamawis to be removed; they had been unlawfully deprived of their
right on the land, and Tomawis actions had cast doubt on their title.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sharia District Court can validly take cognizance of Civil Case No.
102-97

HELD:
The allegations as well as the relief sought by the private respondents to eliminate doubts
on the title of ownership on the subject land are within the jurisdiction of the Sharia District
Court. The said court has, by virtue of PD 1083, original jurisdiction over all personal and real
actions outside the purview of Art. 143 (1)(d) which states that all actions from customary
contracts in which the parties are Muslims, except those for ejectment. Jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the character of
the relief sought. Private respondents petition in Civil Case No. 102-97 alleged the concurrent
original of the SDC. On the other hand, BP 129 was enacted to reorganize only existing civil
courts and is a law of general application to the judiciary.
The concurrent jurisdiction of SDCs and the RTCs over cases involving only Muslims is
recognized by the Court. The SDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions arising
from contracts customary to Muslims to the exclusion of the RTCs, as the exception under PD
1083, while both courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over all other personal actions. Art.
143 of PD 1083 , which states the jurisdictional conferment, is applicable solely when both
parties are Muslims and shall not be construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim.










Vivencio B. Villagarcia v. Fifth Sharia District Court
GR No. 188832

FACTS:
Roldan E. Mala purchased a 300-square-meterparcel of land located Poblacion, Parang,
Maguindanao, from one Ceres Canete on February 15, 1996. TCT No. T-15633, covering the
parcel land, was issued in Roldans name on March 3, 1996. By 2002, Vivencio secured a
Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. P-60192 issued by the Land Registration Authority
allegedly covering the same parcel of land. Roldan only found out that Vivencio occupied the
parcel of land when he had it surveyed on October 30, 2006.
Roldan then filed an action to recover the possession of the parcel of land with
respondent Fifth Sharia District Court due to failure to settle with Vivencio at the barangay
level.
Respondent Fifth Sharia District Court ruled in its decision that Roldan, as registered
owner, had the better right to possess the parcel of land. It also ordered for Vivencio to vacate the
property, turn it over to Roldan, and pay damages as well as attorneys fees. A notice of writ of
execution was sent to Vivencio, giving him 30 days from the receipt thereof to comply with the
decision.
Vivencio filed a petition for relief from judgment with prayer for issuance of writ of
preliminary injunction. He argued that Sharia District Courts may only hear civil actions and
proceedings if both parties are Muslims, stating Article 155 Paragraph (2) of the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines. The respondent Fifth Sharia District Court has no jurisdiction
to take cognizance of Ronalds action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land.
Petition was denied for lack of merit, hence this petition for certiorari with prayer for
issuance of temporary restraining order to enjoin the implementation of the writ of execution
issued against Vivencio.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not a Sharia District Court has jurisdiction over a real action where one
of the parties is not a Muslim
2. Whether or not proceedings before respondent Sharia District Court were valid
since the latter acquired jurisdiction over the person of Vivencio

HELD:
1. Under Article 143 of the Muslim Code, Sharia District Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with existing civil courts over real actions not arising from customary
contacts wherein the parties involved are Muslims. In this case, the allegations in
Roldans petition for recovery of possession did not state that Vivencio is a Muslim.
Roldan did not dispute Vivencios claim that he is not a Muslim, as stated in his
petition for relief from judgment. Respondent Fifth Shariah District Court had no
authority under the law to decide Rolands action because not all of the parties
involved in the action are Muslims.
2. Roldan sought to enforce a personal obligation on Vivencio to vacate his property,
restore to him the possession of his property and to pay damages for the unauthorized
use of his property. This action being in personam, service of summons on Vivencio
was necessary for Respondent Fifth Sharia District Court to acquire jurisdiction over
Vivencios person. However, Vivencio not being a Muslim, the said court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Therefore, all proceedings, including
the service of summons on Vivencio, are void.