G.R. No. 95574 ; August 16, 1991
Hadji Wahida Musa, Hadji Salma Musa, Rizal Musa and Basser Musa, petitioners, vs. Hon. Corocoy D. Moson, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Shari’a District Court, Fifth Shari’a District, Cotabato City and Hadji Jahara Abdurahim, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves the intestate estate of the late Jamiri Musa, a Muslim with extensive real properties located in Maguindanao, Davao del Sur, and Davao Oriental. Respondent Hadji Jahara Abdurahim, claiming to be a surviving widow, filed a petition for administration and settlement of the estate before the Shari’a District Court, Fifth Shari’a District, in Cotabato City, which has territorial jurisdiction over Maguindanao but not over the Davao provinces. Petitioners, including two divorced wives and two sons of the decedent, opposed the petition. They argued that venue was improperly laid and that the Shari’a District Court lacked jurisdiction over the properties situated outside Maguindanao.
The respondent judge initially appointed special administrators for the properties in each province. However, after hearings, the court appointed Abdurahim as the regular administratrix, finding her to be legally married to the decedent. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration and to dismiss, reiterating their objections on venue and jurisdiction. The respondent judge denied these motions, prompting petitioners to elevate the case via a petition for prohibition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Shari’a District Court, Fifth Shari’a District, has jurisdiction over the intestate proceeding and whether venue was properly laid, considering that the decedent’s properties are located in multiple provinces outside its territorial jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, upholding the jurisdiction of the Shari’a District Court and the propriety of venue. The Court clarified that under Article 143(b) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Presidential Decree No. 1083), Shari’a District Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over the settlement of estates of deceased Muslims, regardless of the property’s value or location. This jurisdictional grant is explicit.
On the issue of venue, the Court applied the Rules of Court suppletorily, as permitted under Article 187 of the Muslim Code. Rule 73, Section 1 provides that estate proceedings should be filed in the province where the decedent resided at the time of death. The decedent was a resident of Maguindanao, and he owned property there, making venue proper in the Shari’a District Court for that province. The Court further noted that the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao ( Republic Act No. 6734 ) explicitly states that regular courts shall not acquire jurisdiction over controversies involving real property outside the autonomous region, except in cases of successional rights. This exception directly applies here.
The presence of properties in other provinces does not divest the court of jurisdiction. To require separate proceedings would cause multiplicity of suits and delay settlement. A court with proper venue over one part of the estate can adjudicate the entire estate, and its judgment can be executed in other provinces where the properties are located. The petition for prohibition was therefore denied, and the case was remanded for continuation of the intestate proceedings.