Petitioner filed instant petition with this Court
seeking to set aside the July 18, 1995
G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998 ORDER OF RESPONDENT Presiding Judge, denying motion to dismiss and August 22, 1995 ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Petitioner: Estrellita J. Tamano Resolultion dated December 13, 2019 the Respondents: Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, Presiding Judge, case was referred to the CA for consolidation. RTC-BR. 89, Quezon City, Haja Putri Zorayda A. o Zorayda and Adib filed a motion to Tamano, Adib A. Tamano and Hon. Court of Appeals resolve the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage ahead of the other consolidated cases, which CA granted This is a petition for Review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals of 30 September 1996 which affirmed the decision of the RTC Br. 89, Quezon City, denying the ISSUE: motion to dismiss as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by the Petitioner. Whether the instant case would fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC of Quezon City or the shari’a courts. FACTS of the case:
May 31, 1958 – Tamano married Zorayda in civil
rites. Their marriage supposedly remained valid CA ruled that the instant case would fall until death of Tamano on May 18, 1994. under exclusive jurisdiction of shari’a courts, June 02, 1993 – Tamano also married Estrellita only when filed in places where it exist. In this in Civil Rites in Malabang, Lanao del Sur prior to case, there are no shari’a courts in Quezon his death. City, then the instant case could properly be November 23, 1994 – Zorayda and her son filed filed before the RTC. a Complaint for Declaration of nullity of Marriage Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of for Tamano and Estrellita on the ground that it 1980, RTC have jurisdiction over all actions was bigamous. involving the contract of marriage and marital They contended that Tamano (divorced) and relations. Estrellita (single) misrepresented themselves o Personal actions such as the instant thus making the entries in the marriage contract complaint for declaration of nullity of false and fraudulent. marriage may be commenced and Estrellita filed motion to dismiss saying that RTC tried where the plaintiff or any of the of QC was without jurisdiction over the subject principal plaintiffs resides or where and nature of action. the defendant or any of the principal o She alleged that “only a party to the defendants resides, at the election of marriage” could file an action for the plaintiff. annulment of marriage which can be In the complaint for declaration of nullity of done only by Tamano. marriage filed by Zorayda and her son, it was o She contended that since Tamano alleged that Estrellita and Tamano were and Zorayda were both Muslims and married in accordance with the Civil Code. married in Muslim rites, jurisdiction o Never was it mentioned that they to hear and try instant case was were married under Muslim Laws or vested in the shari’a courts pursuant PD No. 1083. to Art. 155 of the Code of Muslim o Estrellita never stated in her Motion Personal Laws (PD no. 1083). to Dismiss that she and Tamano were Lower court denied motion to dismiss and married under Muslim Laws. She only ruled that instant case was properly mentioned it in her Motion for cognizable by the RTC since Estrellita and Reconsideration. Tamano are married accdg. to the Civil Code. RTC was not divested of jurisdiction to hear o Motion for reconsideration was and try the instant case despite the allegation likewise denied. in the Motion for Reconsideration by Estrellita. o Bec. a court’s jurisdiction cannot be WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The made to depend upon defenses set decision of CA sustaining the July 18, 1995 and up in the answer, or in motion to August 22, 1995 orders of the RTC denying the dismiss, or in a motion for motion to dismiss and reconsideration thereof, is reconsideration, but only upon the AFFIRMED. allegations of the complaint (as it comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s causes of action). Petitioner argues: o 1. shari’a courts have the jurisdiction pursuant to Art 13, title II, PD No. 1083. This shall apply to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with the Muslim law or this Code in any part of PH. o 2. In case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this code, the Civil Code of PH shall apply. o 3. Subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage, divorce, etc. between husband and wife, parental authority and the property relations bet. Husband and wife shall be governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim Laws. But in the complaint, it was stated that Tamano and Estrellita were married in accordance with the Civil Code, hence the Civil Code was applicable in the instant case. Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites. o Shari’a courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages celebrated under both civil and muslim laws. RTC are not divested of their general original jurisdiction under Sec. 19, par 6 of BP blg 129: o Jurisdiction in Civil Cases: RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.