Facts:
On May 31, 1958, Senator
Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Sen Tamano) married private respondent Zorayda in
civil rites. Sen Tamano died on May 18, 1994 but prior to his death,
particularly on June 2, 1993, he also
married petitioner Estrellita in civil rites in Lanao del Sur.
On November 23, 1994,
respondent Zorayda joined by her son Adib filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Sen Tamano and
Estrellita on ground that it was bigamous. They contended that Sen Tamano and
Estrellita misrepresented themselves as divorced and single, respectively, thus
making the entries in the marriage contract false and fraudulent.
According to the private
respondents, Sen Tamano allegedly never divorced Zorayda and that Estrellita
was not single as the decision annulling her previous marriage with Romeo Llave
never became final and executory for non-compliance with publication
requirements.
Estrellita filed a motion to
dismiss alleging that: 1.) RTC of QC was without jurisdiction over the
complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage and that the “only a party
to the marriage” could file an action for annulment of marriage against the
other spouse; and 2.) Shari’a courts
pursuant to Art 155 of the code of Muslim Personal Laws have jurisdiction to
hear and try the instant case since Zorayda and Sen Tamano were both Muslims
and married in Muslim rites.
RTC Ruling: RTC denied the motion to dismiss and ruled that the instant case of declaration
of nullity of marriage was properly cognizable by the RTC since Estrellita and
Sen Tamano were married in accordance with the Civil Code and not
exclusively in accordance with P.D. No 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal
Laws. The motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied.
Petitioner Estrellita filed
the instant petition with this Court seeking to set aside the orders of
respondent presiding Judge Ortiz of RTC denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss
and reconsideration.
In a resolution dated 13
December 1995, SC referred the case to the CA for consolidation with GR No. 118371.
Zorayda and Adib however filed a motion, which the CA granted to resolve the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage.
CA Ruling: CA ruled that the
instant case would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the shari’a courts only when filed in places
where there are shari’a courts. But
in places where there are no shari’a
courts like QC, the instant case could
properly be filed before the RTC.
Issue/s: WON the RTC has
jurisdiction to hear and try the case at hand?
Held/Ratio:
The instant petition is
DENIED. The decision of the CA sustaining the orders of the RTC denying the
motion to dismiss and reconsideration is AFFRIMED.
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.
In the complaint for
declaration of nullity of marriage filed by private respondents herein, it was
alleged that Sen Tamano and Estrellita were married in accordance with the
provisions of Civil Code. Interestingly, Estrellita never stated in her Motion
to Dismiss that she and Sen Tamano were married under Muslim laws or PD 1083.
This was however first mentioned only in her Motion for Reconsideration.
Nevertheless, the RTC was not divested of jurisdiction to
hear or try the instant case despite the allegation on the Motion of
Reconsideration that Estrellita and Sen Tamano were married in Muslim rites
because a court’s jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in
the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but
only upon allegations of the complaint. 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 fact
constituting the plaintiff’s causes of action.
Indeed, Article 13, Title II
of PD 1083 states that shari’a courts have jurisdiction over
instant cases of marriages and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or
wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in
accordance with Muslim law; however, this law does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in
civil and Muslim rites. Consequently,
the shari’a courts are not vested
with original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages under
both civil and Muslim laws. Consequently,
the RTCs are not divested of their
general 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: XXX (6) In all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions xxxx
No comments:
Post a Comment