Villagracia v.

Fifth Shari’a District Court

April 23, 2014 | Leonen, J.
Binding Effect, NCC 18

Doctrine: Shari’a District Courts can only validly hear, try and decide on cases where the
parties involved are Muslims.

Case Summary: Roldan Mala filed an action to recover possession of land with the 5th
Shari’a District Court upon finding out that a certain Vivencio Villagracia secured a
Certificate of Title of the parcel of land that he purchased. When the Shari’a Court ruled
in favor of Mala, Vivencio filed a petition for relief from judgment with the SC on
grounds that the Shari’a Court had no jurisdiction to hear/try/decided the case because he
is not a Muslim. SC affirmed Vivencio’s claims, thereby rendering the 5th Shari’a District
Court proceedings on the case as void and its judgment set aside.

Facts:
 Roldan Mala purchased a 300 sqm. parcel of land located in Poblacion, Parang,
Maguindanao (Shariff Kabunsuan) from Ceres Canete and was issued a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in his name in 1996.
 2002, Vivencio Villagracia secured a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo issued by the
LRA covering the same parcel of land.
 Both parties failed to settle the conflict at the barangay level, so Roldan filed an action
to recover possession of the land with the 5th Shari’a District Court, praying that the
Court orders Vivencio to vacate the property.
 The Shari’a District Court was able to serve its summons to Vivencio; Vivencio filed
no answer.
 Roldan was allowed to present his evidence ex-parte and the Shari’a Court ruled that
he has the right to possess the parcel of land as the registered owner, thereby ordering
Vivencio to vacate the area and pay damages.
 Vivencio then filed a petition for relief from judgment with prayer for issuance of writ
of preliminary injunction. His grounds:
o That according to the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the PH, Shari’a courts
may only hear civil actions/proceedings if both parties are Muslims  Vivencio
is a Christian.
o Hence, the Court had no jurisdiction to take notice of Roldan’s action/petition on
the ground of mistake.
 The Shari’a Court ruled that:
o Vivencio has already waived his right to defend himself when he failed to
answer the summons
o The Court had jurisdiction over Roldan’s action regardless of Vivencio being a
non-Muslim because the case was decided using the provisions of the Civil Code
(not Code of Muslim) and his rights were not prejudiced.
 Vivencio eventually filed a petition for certiorari with the SC using the same grounds.
Issue: Whether or not the Shari’a District Court may validly hear, try and decide on the
case where one of the parties is a non-Muslim.
– NO.

Ruling:
 Shari’a District Courts may only take cognizance of a real action where all the parties
involved are Muslims.
o Roldan’s petition did not state that Vivencio is a Muslim.
o And even when Vivencio stated in his petition that he is not a Muslim,
Roldan did not refute the claim.
 The Court held that, the moment it became apparent that Vivencio is not a
Muslim, the 5th Shari’a District Court should motu proprio dismissed the case.
 Considering that one of the parties involved is not a Muslim, the 5th Shari’a
District Court had no jurisdiction over the case.
o All proceedings are void regardless of the fact that the Civil Code of the
PH was used in deciding the case (and not the Code of Muslim Personal
Laws)
Disposition: The Shari’a judgment ordering Vivencio to vacate the property is set aside,
without prejudice to the possible filing of Roldan of an action with the proper court.

Notes:
- Ex-parte - in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party
- Motu proprio - act taken without a formal request from another party