TAMANO V.

ORTIZ
G.R. No. 126603. June 29, 1998

FACTS:

On May 31, 1958, Sen. Mamintal Adbul Jabar Tamano married private respondent Haja Putri
Zorayda A. Tamano in civil rites. Their marriage supposedly remained valid and subsisting until
his death on May 18, 1994. On June 2, 1993, Tamano also married petitioner Estrellita J. Tamano
in civil rites.

Private respondents alleged that Tamano never divorced Zorayda and that Estrellita was not
single when she married Tamano as the decision annulling her previous marriage with Romeo C.
Llave never became final and executory for non-compliance with publication requirements.

Estrellita filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City was
without jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action. She also contended that since
Tamano and Zorayda were both Muslims and married in Muslims rites, the jurisdiction to hear
and try the case is vested in Sharia courts pursuant to Art 155 of Code of muslim.

The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the instant case was properly cognizable by the RTC of
QC since Estrelita and Tamano were married in accordance with the Civil Code.

The motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition
before the SC. The SC referred the case to CA for consolidation.

The CA affirmed the RTC rulings. The CA ruled that the instant case would fall under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sharia court only when filed in places were there are Sharia courts,
since there was no such court in QC, the instant case could properly be filed before the RTC.

ISSUE:

W/N the Sharia court and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action.

RULING:

The court held that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the subject case. Under Sec. 19
of the Reorganization Act of 1980, RTC have jurisdiction over all actions involving the contract
of marriage and marital relations.

A court’s 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 Shari’a Courts have no original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages
celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws.

The petition is denied and record of the case was remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings.