TAMANO v.

ORTIZ
FACTS:
In 1958, Zoraydo Tamano, respondent, married Senator Tamano. In 1993, Estrelita Tamano,
petitioner, married the same man under civil law.
espondent !led "or nullity on the #round o" $i#amy. %etitioner contended that since respondent
and the deceased Tamano were married in a sharia court under &uslim rites, T'()' has no
*urisdiction over the case. T'()' dismissed petitioner+s complaint and her su$se,uent &otion
"or econsideration. '- ruled that the case would "all under the *urisdiction o" sharia courts only
in places in areas where sharia courts e.ist.
ISSUE:
/01 the Sharia 'ourt has *urisdiction over the case2 NO.
%etitioner 3eld
Sharia 'ourt has no *urisdiction. espondent
and the deceased Tamano were married under
&uslim rites and in a sharia court.
T' has *urisdiction. 4nder the 5udiciary
eor#ani6ation -ct o" 1987, the e#ional Trial
'ourts have *urisdiction over all actions
involvin# the contract o" marria#e and marital
relations.
In her &otion "or econsideration, petitioner
alle#ed that she was also married in &uslim
rites.
The e#ional Trial 'ourt was not divested o"
*urisdiction to hear and try the instant case
despite petitioner+s alle#ation. This is $ecause
a court+s *urisdiction cannot $e made to depend
upon de"enses set up in the answer, in a
motion to dismiss, or in a motion "or
reconsideration, $ut only upon alle#ations o"
the complaint.
-rticle 13 o" %8 1o. 1783 9'ode o" &uslim:
does not provide "or a situation where the
parties were married $oth in civil and &uslim
rites. 'onse,uently, the sharia courts are not
vested with ori#inal and exclusive *urisdiction
when it comes to marria#es cele$rated under
both civil and &uslim laws.