GR 182434; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182434, March 5, 2010.
SULTAN YAHYA “JERRY” M. TOMAWIS, Petitioner, vs. HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, AMNA A. PUMBAYA, JALILAH A. MANGOMPIA, and RAMLA A. MUSOR, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, daughters of the late Acraman Radia, filed an action for quieting of title over a parcel of land in Marawi City against petitioner Sultan Jerry Tomawis and Mangoda Radia before the Shari’a District Court (SDC). They alleged absolute ownership as legal heirs, claiming Tomawis assumed ownership based on a purchase from Mangoda Radia, leveled the land, removed structures, and unlawfully deprived them of possession, casting a cloud on their title. Tomawis, in his answer, raised as an affirmative defense the SDC’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, arguing that jurisdiction lies with the regular civil courts under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The SDC, through respondent Judge Rasad G. Balindong, denied the motion to dismiss, asserting concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court under Article 143(2)(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws). Tomawis filed subsequent motions to dismiss on the same jurisdictional grounds, which were also denied. After the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition, citing that final decisions of the SDC are reviewable by the Shari’a Appellate Court (pending its organization, by the Supreme Court), Tomawis filed this petition directly with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Shari’a District Court can validly take cognizance of Civil Case No. 102-97, an action for quieting of title, or whether it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Shari’a District Court validly exercised jurisdiction over the complaint for quieting of title. The Court held that Article 143(2)(b) of P.D. No. 1083 grants the SDC concurrent original jurisdiction with existing civil courts over all personal and real actions, except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, wherein the parties involved are Muslims. An action for quieting of title is a real action. The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, which vests exclusive original jurisdiction over real actions in the Regional Trial Courts or Municipal Trial Courts, impliedly repealed Article 143(2)(b) of P.D. No. 1083. The Court applied the rule that a special law (P.D. No. 1083, pertaining to Muslims) is not repealed by a general law (B.P. Blg. 129, on judiciary reorganization) absent an express repeal, and that laws should be harmonized whenever possible. Since the parties involved are Muslims, the SDC properly exercised its concurrent jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.