12:29 AM
Shari'a District Courts Jurisdiction Over Real Actions
12:29 AMRoldan purchased a 300-square-meter parcel of land located in Shariff Kabunsuan, from one Ceres. Transfer Certificate of Title covering ...
Roldan
purchased a 300-square-meter parcel of land located in Shariff
Kabunsuan, from one Ceres. Transfer Certificate of Title covering the
parcel of land was issued in Roldan’s name. Roldan had the parcel
of land surveyed. In a report, the Geodetic Engineer found that
Vivencio occupied the parcel of land covered by Roldan’s
certificate of title.
Failing
to settle with Vivencio at the barangay level, Roldan filed an action
to recover the possession of the parcel of land with respondent Fifth
Shari’a District Court alleging among others that he is a Filipino
Muslim
Respondent
court took cognizance of the case and caused service of summons on
Vivencio. However, despite service of summons, Vivencio failed to
file his answer. Thus, Roldan moved that he be allowed to present
evidence ex parte, which motion respondent Fifth Shari’a District
Court granted. In its decision, respondent Fifth Shari’a District
Court ruled that Roldan, as registered owner, had the better right to
possess the parcel of land. Thereafter, it issued the notice of writ
of execution to Vivencio.
Vivencio
filed a petition for relief from judgment with prayer for issuance of
writ of preliminary injunction. He argued that Shari’a District
Courts may only hear civil actions and proceedings if both parties
are Muslims. Considering that he is a Christian, Vivencio argued that
respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of Roldan’s action for recovery of possession of a
parcel of land. However, respondent court denied the petition.
ISSUE:
Does
the Shari’a District Court has jusrisdiction over real action where
one of the parties is not a muslim even if it decides the action
applying the provisions of the Civil Code?
RULING:
The
Shari’a District Court has NO jurisdiction over real action where
one of the parties is not a Muslim. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong." This power
is conferred by law, which may either be the Constitution or a
statute. Since subject matter jurisdiction is a matter of law,
parties cannot choose, consent to, or agree as to what court or
tribunal should decide their disputes. If a court hears, tries, and
decides an action in which it has no jurisdiction, all its
proceedings, including the judgment rendered, are void.
The
law conferring the jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts is the
Code of the Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. Under Article
143 of the Muslim Code, Shari’a District Courts have concurrent
original jurisdiction with "existing civil courts" over
real actions not arising from customary contracts wherein the parties
involved are Muslims. However, this concurrent jurisdiction over real
actions "is applicable solely when both parties are Muslims".
When one of the parties is not a Muslim, the action must be filed
before the regular courts.
Considering
that Vivencio is not a Muslim, respondent Fifth Shari’a District
Court had no jurisdiction over Roldan’s action for recovery of
possession of real property. The proceedings before it are void,
regardless of the fact that it applied the provisions of the Civil
Code of the Philippines in resolving the action.
The
application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines by
respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court does not validate the
proceedings before the court. Under Article 175 of the Muslim Code,
customary contracts are construed in accordance with Muslim law.
Hence, Shari’a District Courts apply Muslim law when resolving real
actions arising from customary contracts.
In
real actions not arising from contracts customary to Muslims, there
is no reason for Shari’a District Courts to apply Muslim law. In
such real actions, Shari’a District Courts will necessarily apply
the laws of general application, which in this case is the Civil Code
of the Philippines, regardless of the court taking cognizance of the
action.
G.R.
No. 188832, April 23, 2014
VIVENCIO
B. VILLAGRACIA, Petitioner, vs.
FIFTH (5th) SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT and ROLDAN E. MALA,
represented by his father Hadji Kalam T. Mala, Respondents.
LEONEN,
J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
