Mendez v Sharia District Court

GR. No. 201614

January 12, 2016
Mendoza, J.

TOPIC: Effects if Annulment on the status and custody of the child

FACTS:

On April 9, 2008, Sherly M. Mendez and Dr. John O. Maliga were married under Muslim rites. They
had a daughter named Princess Fatima M. Maliga.
On November 2, 2010, Maliga filed a petition for the judicial confirmation of talaq from Mendez with
the Sharia Circuit Court. Also, a prayer to grant of probational custody for their minor child.
Maliga claims that Mendez was a Roman Catholic and only embraced the Islamic faith when they got
married. However, Mendez defiant to the ways of Islam.
He alleged that Mendez converted to Christianity in December 2008. He claimed that Mendez went
to Manila with Princess Fatima without his knowledge and enrolled her in a catholic school.
Before Mendez could file her answer, Maliga filed an urgent motion to award temporary custody of
Princess Fatima. Considering the factors as moral values and religious growth, he should have custody
of their child.
On November 12, 2010, the ShCC granted Maligas urgent motion. He was deemed proper for
Princess Fatima to stay with her father because of his social, financial and religious standing.
Considering he raised her as a good Muslim daughter and that her parents were married under
Islamic rites.
Mendez claims that she became pregnant with her before she married Maliga. She claims that the
custody of children below seven years old should belong to the mother.
On December 3, 2010, the ShCC awarded temporary custody to Maliga
Mendez filed a motion for reconsideration on December 3, 2010, arguing that the question of
custody was within exclusive original jurisdiction of the ShDC not ShCC.
On August 19, 2011, ShCC issued the order confirming Talaq and awarded to him the custody of
Princess Fatima. The court noted that it was caused by irreconcilable religious difference between the
spouses and upbringing of their daughter. In the best interest of the child in all aspects of life
economic, social and religious, the care and custody of Princess Fatima should remain with Maliga.
Mendez filed an appeal with SHDC with respect to the ruling on custody. She argued that the order of
the SHC was null and void for its failure to state facts and law which their findings were based on.
She claims that
o She did not contain the requisite notice of hearing
o The mother had the right of custody if child was under 7 years old
o Question of custody is in the exclusive original jurisdiction of the ShDC only order of the
court not vest with jurisdiction was null and void
On March 30, 2012, SHDC affirmed the order or ShCC on the grounds:
o Mendez reverted back to Christianity
o In Sharia Law, a mother might be legally disentitled to the custody of her child if she turned
apostate and disqualified until she returned to the Islamic faith.
o Father, a Muslim, was in better position to take care of the child and raise her as a Muslim.
Mendez contended that ShCC had no jurisdiction to decide on the issue of Princess Fatimas custody
considering the under Art 143 (1) (1) of PD 1083 Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, it
is the ShDC which has exclusive original Jurisdiction over all cases involving custody. Thus, she argues
that the custody decision made by ShCC is null and void.
She asserts that she should be awarded custody under Art 78 of PD 1083, as Princess is was not
above seven years old at the time ShCC ordered was promulgated. Muslim Law does not provide that
apostate is a ground to be denied of the care and custody of her minor child. She is still a Muslim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not custody of Princess Fatima was property granted to Maliga?

HELD: No
The decision of the court must be able to address issues raised by parties through the presentation of
comprehensive analysis or account of factual and legal findings of the court.

In the case, both ShCC and ShDC had no evidentiary basis on awarding custody of Princess Fatima to
Maliga because there was no hearing that was conducted prior to the issuance. ShCC merely stated that it
was in Princess Fatimas best interest in all aspects of life, economically, socially and religiously that
custody be awarded to her father. Also, it had no findings that Mendez was unfit to have legal custody of
her child nor Maliga was in a better position to take custody of Princess Fatima.

The award of custody to Maliga not only violated the constitutional right of Mendez to due process but
also both orders of ShCC and ShDC were without evidentiary basis because no hearing was actually
conducted prior to the issuance of the order granting the urgent motion.

Also, this Court held that Mendez is not disentitled to custody of her child being turned apostate but
rather under Art 93 of the Muslims Code the disqualification due to apostasy pertains to disinheritance
and not the custody of children.

Regarding jurisdiction of ShCC and ShDC:

According to Article 155 PD 1083, the jurisdiction of ShCC shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction
over al civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims involving disputes relating to :
(d) divorce recognized under this code
According to Art. 143 PD 1083, ShDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases involving custody
According to Art 54 Effects of irrevocable talaq or faskh (c) the custody of children shall be
determined in accordance with Art 78 .
Art 78 states that the care and custody of children below seven whose parents are divorced shall
belong to the mother and the minor above seven but below the age of puberty may choose the
parent with whom he/she wants to stay
Court ruled that Jurisdiction would be based upon whether the case for divorce the issue of custody is an
ancillary issue or main issue. If ancillary issue, the ShCC has jurisdiction. If main cause of action is custody,
the ShDC has jurisdiction.

DUE PROCESS:
The temporary custody was filed on October 9, 2010 before the main petition for talag was filed on
November 2 2010. She never received a summons pertaining to the urgent motion.
She lacked the requisite of notice of hearing. Such notice is intended to prevent surprise and to afforce
adverse party a change to be hear- minimum requirement for procedural due process

A motion that does not contain notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper and presents no question which
merits the attention.
Laperal v. Republic

116 Phil 672

Facts:

Elisea Laperal married Enrique Santamaria. They are now legally separated. Elisea wants to resume the
use of her maiden name. Petition was opposed by the City Attorney on the ground that it violates Art. 372
of the CC and that is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court. The lower court originally dismissed the
petition but changed its mind and granted it on the ground that it was merely for a change of name. It
also reasoned that the use of the married name would give rise to confusion in the womans finances and
the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets.

ssue:WON a wife can use her maiden name after a decree of legal separation has been granted.

Held/Ratio:

No. Legal Separation alone is not a ground for wifes change of name. Art 372 specifically mandates the
wife to continue using name and surname employed before the legal separation. Her marriage status is
unaffected by the separation. Rule 103 (provision for a change of name in general) does not prevail over
the mandatory provision of Art. 372.
Araneta vs Concepcion

99 Phil 709

FACTS:

. 1) Petitioner filed action against his wife for legal sep ground: adultery

. 2) Defendant filed an omnibus petition to secure custody of their three minor children, a monthly
support of P5000 for herself and said children and the return of her passport to enjoin plaintiff
from ordering his hirelings from harassing and molesting her as well as pay for attorneys fees

. 3) Plaintiff denied misconduct imputed to him and alleging that defendant has abandoned the
childrenconjugal properties were worth only P80,000

- contends defendant is not entitled to the custody of the children as she has abandoned them
and had committed adultery, that by her conduct she had become unfit to educate her children,
being unstable in her emotions and unable to give the children to love, respect and care of a true
mother and w/o means to educate them
- CFI: granted custody of the children to defendant and a monthly allowance of P2300 for support
for her and the children, P300 for a house and P2000 as attorneys fees; reconsideration denied
- DECISION OF SC; Writ prayed for is ISSUED and the respondent judge or whosoever takes his
place is ordered to proceed on the question of custody and support pendent elite in accordance
with this opinion. The ocurts order fixing the alimony and requiring payment is REVERSED
- RATIO:1) main reason given by judge for refusing
- plaintiffs request that evidence be allowed to be introduced: art 103 of CC6 months
allowancecooling off period

2) provision of code is mandatorycourt understands that the introduction of any evidence, be it on the
merits of the case or on any incident, is prohibitedstatus

quo to be preserved for this time

. 3) it may be noted that since 6 mos have elapsed since the filing of the petition may not be allowed
reasons for granting the preliminary injunction should be given tat the scope of the art cited
may be explained
. 4) cooling off period to make possible a reconciliation

. 5) but this practical expedient, necessary to carry out legislative policy does not have the effect of
overriding other provisions such as the determination of the custody of children and alimony and
support pendent elite according to the circumstances

. 6) the law expressly enjoins that these should be determined by the court according to the
circumstances, if these are ignored or the courts close their eyes to actual facts, rank in justice
may be casued

7) allegations of adultery letter of authenticity as evidenceabandonment of conjugal abodeevidence

of all these disputed allegations should be allowed that the discretion of the court as to the custody and
alimony pendent elite may be lawfully exercised

8) the rule is that all the provisions of the law even if apparenty contradictory, should be allowed to stand
and given effect by reconciling them if necessary

9) thus determination of custody and alimony should be given effect and force provided it does not go to
the extent of violating the policy of the cooling off period

evidence not affecting the casue of the separation, like the actual custody of children, the means
conducive to their welfare and convenience during the pendency of the case, these should be allowed
that the court may determine which is best for their custody

-
-