G.R. No. 169627; April 6, 2011
ROSEMARIE SALMA ARAGONCILLO-MOLOK, Petitioner, vs. SITY AISA BARANGAI MOLOK, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Sity Aisa Barangai Molok and Col. Agakhan M. Molok were married on June 29, 1992, and their marriage was registered in Davao City. After Agakhan died on November 20, 2003, respondent discovered that petitioner Rosemarie Salma Aragoncillo-Molok was also claiming to be his wife by virtue of a Certificate of Marriage dated May 20, 1999, purportedly solemnized under Muslim rites and registered in Zamboanga City on June 14, 2004. Respondent found certifications indicating no record of this second marriage at the alleged venue and an affidavit from the named solemnizing officer denying he performed it. Consequently, respondent filed a verified petition before the Third Shari’a District Court of Zamboanga City (SPL. PROC. No. 01-04) seeking the cancellation of the registration of petitioner’s alleged marriage. The trial court issued an order setting the hearing, requiring publication and posting, and directing any opposition to be shown. Petitioner sent a letter of opposition and later filed a “Manifestation (With prayer for reconsideration)” dated March 16, 2005, stating she had not received a copy of the petition and its exhibits and could not file a responsive pleading unless furnished, and praying for the order to be set aside to allow her to file a comment. The trial court did not act on this manifestation. At the hearing on March 28, 2005, only respondent and her counsel appeared. The trial court, noting petitioner had not filed a formal opposition as required under Rule 108, rendered a decision on June 28, 2005, declaring the petitioner’s marriage null and void and ordering its cancellation from the registry. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Although initially set for hearing on September 1, 2005 (a non-working holiday), the clerk advised petitioner to wait for a resetting notice. However, the trial court had already denied the motion via an order dated July 25, 2005, issued before the scheduled hearing. Petitioner elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, contending her constitutional right to due process was violated.

ISSUE

Whether the Third Shari’a District Court denied petitioner her right to due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was denied her right to due process. The Court found that while petitioner was notified of the hearing via the January 24, 2005 order, neither respondent nor the trial court furnished her with a copy of the petition and its annexes despite her explicit plea in her March 16, 2005 Manifestation. By ignoring this meritorious plea, which was essential for her to file a proper opposition in the adversarial proceedings under Rule 108, the trial court denied petitioner her day in court. Furthermore, the trial court’s July 25, 2005 order denying her motion for reconsideration was issued without addressing the due process issue and before the scheduled hearing date, despite assurances of a resetting notice. Consequently, the Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision and Order of the Third Shari’a District Court dated June 28, 2005 and July 25, 2005, respectively, and REMANDED the case to said court for further proceedings.