GR 188832; (April, 2014) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
On February 15, 1996, respondent Roldan E. Mala, a Muslim, purchased a parcel of land and was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-15633. Petitioner Vivencio B. Villagracia, a Christian, occupied the land. By 2002, Vivencio secured a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo allegedly covering the same land. After failed barangay conciliation, Roldan filed an action for recovery of possession with the Fifth Shari’a District Court. The Shari’a court took cognizance of the case, and upon Vivencio’s failure to file an answer despite service of summons, allowed Roldan to present evidence ex parte. The Shari’a court rendered a decision on June 11, 2008, ordering Vivencio to vacate the property and pay damages. Vivencio filed a petition for relief from judgment, arguing the Shari’a District Court had no jurisdiction as he is a non-Muslim. The Shari’a court denied his petition, ruling it had jurisdiction and that Vivencio had waived his rights. Vivencio then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The principal issue is whether a Shari’a District Court has jurisdiction over a real action where one of the parties is not a Muslim.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled for petitioner Vivencio B. Villagracia. The Shari’a District Court had no jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the action for recovery of possession. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. Article 143(2)(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1083, or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, provides that Shari’a District Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over “real actions not arising from landlord-tenant relations filed by Muslims against Muslims.” The Court held that the phrase “filed by Muslims against Muslims” is a qualifying phrase that applies to all cases enumerated under Article 143(2), including real actions. Therefore, for a Shari’a District Court to have jurisdiction over a real action, all parties must be Muslims. Since Vivencio is a Christian, the Shari’a District Court lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, all proceedings before it, including the decision dated June 11, 2008, are void. The Court made the temporary restraining order permanent and set aside the Shari’a District Court’s decision and orders.