G.R. No. 82077; August 16, 1991
Midsapak Tampar, Maisalam Tampar, Heirs of Gampong Tampar, represented by Hadji Mustapha Gampong and Heirs of Pagayawan Tampar, represented by Sumapi Tampar, petitioners, vs. Esmael Usman, Mohamad Datumanong, Hadji Salik Nur and the Register of Deeds for the City of Cotabato, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of an “Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale” before the Shari’a District Court in Cotabato City. They claimed ownership of a parcel of land inherited from their ancestor, Tuan Kali Dimalen, and covered by a Torrens title. They sought to annul a 1947 deed conveying the land to respondent Esmael Usman for P1,000.00, alleging their signatures were forged and the sale was void for lack of required gubernatorial approval. Respondents denied the forgery and asserted the validity of the sale, with Usman subsequently selling the property to his co-respondents.
During pre-trial, the court defined the issues as whether Usman forged the deed and whether the subsequent buyers were in good faith. The court directed the parties to submit witness statements. Petitioners’ sole witness withdrew, leaving them with no evidence. They then invoked Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure for Shari’a Courts, challenging respondent Usman to take an oath (“yamin”) to deny the forgery, as the rule allows a defendant to take an oath for judgment in his favor if the plaintiff has no evidence. Usman opposed, arguing petitioners should first take the oath. The Shari’a court ordered Usman to take the oath, which he did, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the Shari’a court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint based on the defendant’s “yamin” after the plaintiffs failed to present evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal of the complaint but on grounds different from the application of the “yamin.” The Court held that under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily to Shari’a court proceedings, each party must prove their own affirmative allegations. Since petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to support their claim of forgery, the complaint was properly dismissible for lack of proof, irrespective of the oath taken by the respondent.
However, the Court expressed serious constitutional concerns regarding Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure for Shari’a Courts, which mandates judgment based solely on the taking of an oath when a plaintiff lacks evidence. The Court ruled this provision effectively deprives a litigant of due process, specifically the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and declared it should have no place in the Philippine judicial system. The Court directed the constitution of a committee to review and propose amendments to delete this provision from the Special Rules, ensuring alignment with constitutional guarantees.