G.R. No. 201614, January 12, 2016. SHERYL M. MENDEZ, Petitioner, vs. Shari’a District Court, 5th Shari’a District, Cotabato City, Rasad G. Balindong (Acting Presiding Judge); 1st Shari’a Circuit Court, 5th Shari’a District, Cotabato City, Montano K. Kalimpo (Presiding Judge); and DR. JOHN O. MALIGA, Respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Sheryl M. Mendez and private respondent Dr. John O. Maliga were married under Muslim rites in 2008, having a daughter, Princess Fatima, prior to the marriage. The marriage soured, with Maliga filing a petition in the Shari’a Circuit Court (ShCC) for judicial confirmation of talaq (divorce). He alleged Mendez was insincere in her Islamic faith, had reverted to Christianity, and took their daughter to Manila without his consent, enrolling her in a Catholic school. Maliga sought and was initially granted temporary custody. Mendez countered that she had raised their daughter alone, that Maliga had multiple wives, and that he had forcibly retained the child after a visit. The ShCC constituted an Agama Arbitration Council, but no settlement was reached.
The ShCC subsequently issued an Order confirming the talaq, awarding custody of Princess Fatima to Maliga, granting Mendez visitation rights, and ordering Maliga to give a mut’a (consolatory gift). Mendez appealed to the Shari’a District Court (ShDC), which affirmed the ShCC’s decision. Mendez then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) Whether the ShCC had jurisdiction to award custody of a minor child in a talaq case; and (2) Whether the award of custody to the father was proper under the circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the ShDC decision, and set aside the ShCC orders. On jurisdiction, the Court held that while the ShCC had jurisdiction over the talaq petition, its jurisdiction over the custody issue was merely incidental. The Code of Muslim Personal Laws (P.D. No. 1083) explicitly vests exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the custody of minors in the Shari’a District Court, not the Shari’a Circuit Court. Therefore, the ShCC’s custody award was issued without jurisdiction and was null and void.
On the merits of custody, the Court applied Article 78 of P.D. No. 1083, which mandates that the care and custody of children below seven years old belong to the mother. Princess Fatima was below seven at the time of the proceedings. The law creates a conclusive presumption in favor of maternal custody, absent a finding of the mother’s unfitness. The ShCC’s reasoning—prioritizing the father’s social, financial, and religious standing—directly contravened this clear legal provision. The Court emphasized that the best interest of the child, as statutorily defined for Muslims, is served by maternal custody for children under seven. Thus, custody should be awarded to Mendez. The case was remanded to the proper Shari’a District Court for the execution of the custody order and further proceedings on the mut’a.