G.R. No. 174975 , January 20, 2009
LUISA KHO MONTAÑER, ALEJANDRO MONTAÑER, JR., LILLIBETH MONTAÑER-BARRIOS, AND RHODORA ELEANOR MONTAÑER-DALUPAN, Petitioners, vs. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT, FOURTH SHARI’A JUDICIAL DISTRICT, MARAWI CITY, LILING DISANGCOPAN, AND ALMAHLEEN LILING S. MONTAÑER, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luisa Kho Montañer, a Roman Catholic, married Alejandro Montañer, Sr. in 1956. Petitioners Alejandro Montañer, Jr., Lillibeth Montañer-Barrios, and Rhodora Eleanor Montañer-Dalupan are their children. Alejandro Montañer, Sr. died on May 26, 1995. On August 19, 2005, private respondents Liling Disangcopan and her daughter Almahleen Liling S. Montañer, both Muslims, filed a “Complaint” for judicial partition of properties before the Shari’a District Court, alleging that the late Alejandro Montañer, Sr. was a Muslim, that Liling Disangcopan was his widow, and that Almahleen was his daughter. They prayed for partition of the estate and appointment of an administrator. Petitioners filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the Shari’a District Court lacked jurisdiction because the decedent was a Roman Catholic, that the docket fees were insufficient, and that the action was barred by prescription regarding filiation. The Shari’a District Court initially dismissed the complaint on November 22, 2005, holding that the decedent was not a Muslim. Private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which petitioners opposed for lack of a notice of hearing. The Shari’a District Court denied the opposition, held that the defect was cured, and in its assailed Orders dated August 22, 2006 and September 21, 2006, reconsidered the dismissal and set the case for trial. Petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Shari’a District Court committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the case and in issuing the assailed orders, considering the challenges to its jurisdiction, the nature of the proceeding, the payment of docket fees, the procedural defect in the motion for reconsideration, and the alleged prescription of the action for recognition.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the Shari’a District Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of deceased Muslims under Article 143(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws). The determination of whether the decedent was a Muslim is a question of fact that the Shari’a District Court must first resolve to determine its own jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and is determined by the averments in the complaint. The defense raised in the answer or motion to dismiss does not deprive the court of jurisdiction; the court has the authority to hear evidence on the jurisdictional fact. The proceeding, although denominated a “Complaint,” is in substance a petition for the issuance of letters of administration and settlement of estate, which is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. The estate of the decedent is not an entity suable in an ordinary action, but in a special proceeding for settlement of estate, the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested through the publication of the notice. On the payment of docket fees, the Court held that the Shari’a District Court should determine the correct amount based on the estimated value of the estate, and any deficiency does not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction but may result in a lien on the judgment. On the procedural defect of the motion for reconsideration lacking a notice of hearing, the Court held that the Shari’a District Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in considering the motion, as the defect was cured when the court set it for hearing and the petitioners were notified. On the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that the action, being one for the settlement of estate, is imprescriptible. The determination of heirship is a necessary incident in estate proceedings, and the prescribed action for recognition does not bar a claim for inheritance if filiation is established by other means. The Shari’a District Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in proceeding to trial to receive evidence on these matters.