G.R. No. 119064 ; August 22, 2000
NENG “KAGUI KADIGUIA” MALANG, petitioner, vs. HON. COROCOY MOSON, Presiding Judge of 5th Shari’a District Court, Cotabato City, HADJI MOHAMMAD ULYSSIS MALANG, HADJI ISMAEL MALINDATU MALANG, FATIMA MALANG, DATULNA MALANG, LAWANBAI MALANG, JUBAIDA KADO MALANG, NAYO OMAL MALANG and MABAY GANAP MALANG, respondents.

FACTS

Hadji Abdula Malang, a Muslim, contracted multiple marriages under Muslim law, the first being with Aida Limba in 1948. He subsequently married other women, including petitioner Neng Malang in 1972. Upon his death in 1993, petitioner filed a petition for settlement of his estate, claiming to be his wife and listing certain heirs. Other heirs, including children from the first marriage and other surviving spouses, filed oppositions. The Shari’a District Court appointed joint administrators.
During proceedings, petitioner moved for an allowance from the estate for medical expenses. The court granted a partial amount. Subsequently, the court issued an Omnibus Order declaring that the property relations of Hadji Abdula and all his wives, including petitioner, were governed by the conjugal partnership of gains under the Civil Code, not by the Muslim Code (P.D. 1083). The court reasoned that since the marriages were solemnized before the effectivity of the Muslim Code on February 4, 1977, the Civil Code regime applied. Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari, arguing the Shari’a court committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Shari’a District Court committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the conjugal partnership of gains under the Civil Code governs the property relations of Muslims who married prior to the effectivity of P.D. 1083 (the Muslim Code).

RULING

Yes, the Shari’a District Court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Omnibus Order. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of retroactivity and the specific provisions of the Muslim Code. Article 13(2) of P.D. 1083 explicitly provides that its provisions on property relations between spouses shall apply to marriages contracted before its effectivity, except where vested rights have already been acquired under prior laws. The Court found no such vested rights were acquired here, as the estate was still in the process of settlement and no final adjudication of property ownership had occurred.
The Court emphasized that the Muslim Code is a special law intended to govern Muslims, and its retroactive application to pre-existing marriages is a clear legislative intent to integrate Islamic personal laws into the Philippine legal system. The regime of conjugal partnership of gains under the Civil Code is a general law. Applying it to Muslims married under their own law before 1977 would contravene the Code’s purpose of recognizing and preserving Muslim customs. Therefore, for marriages solemnized under Muslim law prior to February 4, 1977, the property relations are governed by the pertinent provisions of the Muslim Code, specifically its own system of property relations, and not by the Civil Code’s conjugal partnership of gains. The case was remanded for proper proceedings under the Muslim Code.