monater et al vs sharia district court et al, gr no 174975, 01-20-2009 - copy

8/12/2019 Monater Et Al vs Sharia District Court Et Al, GR No 174975, 01-20-2009 - Copy

1/10

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 174975 January 20, 2009

LUISA !O MONTA"ER, ALEJAN#RO MONTA"ER, JR., LILLI$ET!MONTA"ER%$ARRIOS, AN# R!O#ORA ELEANOR MONTA"ER%#ALUPAN,Petitioners,vs.S!ARI&A #ISTRICT COURT, 'OURT! S!ARI&A JU#ICIAL #ISTRICT,MARA(I CIT), LILING #ISANGCOPAN, AN# ALMA!LEEN LILING S.MONTA"ER,Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

PUNO, C.J.:

This Petition for Certiorariand Prohibition see"s to set aside the Orders of the Shari#aDistrict !ourt, Fourth Shari#a $udicial District, Mara%i !it&, dated 'u(ust )), )**+andSepte-ber ), )**+.)

On 'u(ust , /0+, petitioner 1uisa 2ho Monta3er, a Ro-an !atholic, -arried'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. at the I--aculate !onception Parish in !ubao, 5ue6on !it&.7Petitioners 'le4andro Monta3er, $r., 1illibeth Monta3er89arrios, and Rhodora leanor

Monta3er8Dalupan are their children.:

On Ma& )+, //0, 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. died.0

On 'u(ust /, )**0, private respondents 1ilin( Disan(copan and her dau(hter,'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er, both Musli-s, filed a ;!o-plaint; for the 4udicialpartition of properties before the Shari#a District !ourt.+The said co-plaint %as entitled;'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er and 1ilin( M. Disan(copan v. the states and Propertiesof 1ate 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr., 1uisa 2ho Monta3er, 1illibeth 2. Monta3er, 'le4andro2ho Monta3er, $r., and Rhodora leanor 2. Monta3er,; and doc"eted as ;Special !ivil'ction No. 8*0.;In the said co-plaint, private respondents -ade the follo%in(alle(ations< => in Ma& //0, 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. died? =)> the late 'le4androMonta3er, Sr. is a Musli-? =7> petitioners are the first fa-il& of the decedent? =:> 1ilin(

Disan(copan is the %ido% of the decedent? =0> 'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er is thedau(hter of the decedent? and =+> the esti-ated value of and a list of the propertiesco-prisin( the estate of the decedent.@Private respondents pra&ed for the Shari#a District!ourt to order, a-on( others, the follo%in(< => the partition of the estate of the decedent?and =)> the appoint-ent of an ad-inistrator for the estate of the decedent./

Petitioners filed an 'ns%er %ith a Motion to Dis-iss -ainl& on the follo%in( (rounds the Shari#a District !ourt has no 4urisdiction over the estate of the late 'le4andro
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt9


2/10

Monta3er, Sr., because he %as a Ro-an !atholic? =)> private respondents failed to pa&the correct a-ount of doc"et fees? and =7> private respondents# co-plaint is barred b&prescription, as it see"s to establish filiation bet%een 'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er andthe decedent, pursuant to 'rticle 0 of the Fa-il& !ode.*

On Nove-ber )), )**0, the Shari#a District !ourt dis-issed the private respondents#co-plaint. The district court held that 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. %as not a Musli-, and its4urisdiction eAtends onl& to the settle-ent and distribution of the estate of deceasedMusli-s.

On Dece-ber ), )**0, private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. )OnDece-ber )@, )**0, petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration,alle(in( that the -otion for reconsideration lac"ed a notice of hearin(. 7On $anuar& ,)**+, the Shari#a District !ourt denied petitioners# opposition.:Despite findin( that thesaid -otion for reconsideration ;lac"ed notice of hearin(,; the district court held thatsuch defect %as cured as petitioners ;%ere notified of the eAistence of the pleadin(,; and

it too" co(ni6ance of the said -otion.

0

The Shari#a District !ourt also reset the hearin(for the -otion for reconsideration.+

In its first assailed order dated 'u(ust )), )**+, the Shari#a District !ourt reconsideredits order of dis-issal dated Nove-ber )), )**0.The district court allo%ed privaterespondents to adduce further evidence.@In its second assailed order dated Septe-ber), )**+, the Shari#a District !ourt ordered the continuation of trial, trial on the -erits,adduce-ent of further evidence, and pre8trial conference./

See"in( recourse before this !ourt, petitioners raise the follo%in( issues of Presidential Decree No. *@7, other%ise "no%n as the !ode of Musli-Personal 1a%s of the Philippines, provides that the Shari#a District !ourts have eAclusiveori(inal 4urisdiction over the settle-ent of the estate of deceased Musli-s the pra&er for the partition of the estate of the decedent? and =)>the pra&er for the appoint-ent of an ad-inistrator of the said estate.

Ee cannot a(ree %ith the contention of the petitioners that the district court does not have4urisdiction over the case because of an alle(ation in their ans%er %ith a -otion todis-iss that Monta3er, Sr. is not a Musli-. $urisdiction of a court over the nature of theaction and its sub4ect -atter does not depend upon the defenses set forth in an ans%er)0ora -otion to dis-iss.)+Other%ise, 4urisdiction %ould depend al-ost entirel& on thedefendant)or result in havin( ;a case either thro%n out of court or its proceedin(sundul& dela&ed b& si-ple strata(e-.)@Indeed, the ;defense of lac" of 4urisdiction %hichis dependent on a Juestion of fact does not render the court to lose or be deprived of its

4urisdiction.;

)/

The sa-e rationale applies to an ans%er %ith a -otion to dis-iss.7*In the case at bar, theShari#a District !ourt is not deprived of 4urisdiction si-pl& because petitioners raised asa defense the alle(ation that the deceased is not a Musli-. The Shari#a District !ourt hasthe authorit& to hear and receive evidence to deter-ine %hether it has 4urisdiction, %hichreJuires an a priorideter-ination that the deceased is a Musli-. If after hearin(, theShari#a District !ourt deter-ines that the deceased %as not in fact a Musli-, the districtcourt should dis-iss the case for lac" of 4urisdiction.

Special Proceedin(s

The underl&in( assu-ption in petitioners# second ar(u-ent, that the proceedin( beforethe Shari#a District !ourt is an ordinar& civil action a(ainst a deceased person, rests on anerroneous understandin( of the proceedin( before the court a quo. Part of the confusion-a& be attributed to the proceedin( before the Shari#a District !ourt, %here the parties%ere desi(nated either as plaintiffs or defendants and the case %as deno-inated as aspecial civil action. Ee reiterate that the proceedin(s before the court a quoare for theissuance of letters of ad-inistration, settle-ent, and distribution of the estate of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt30


5/10

deceased, %hich is a special proceedin(. Section 7=c> of the Rules of !ourt =Rules>defines a special proceedin( as ;a re-ed& b& %hich a part& see"s to establish a status, ari(ht, or a particular fact.; This !ourt has applied the Rules, particularl& the rules onspecial proceedin(s, for the settle-ent of the estate of a deceased Musli-.7In a petitionfor the issuance of letters of ad-inistration, settle-ent, and distribution of estate, the

applicants see" to establish the fact of death of the decedent and later to be dul&reco(ni6ed as a-on( the decedent#s heirs, %hich %ould allo% the- to eAercise their ri(htto participate in the settle-ent and liJuidation of the estate of the decedent.7)Bere, therespondents see" to establish the fact of 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr.#s death and,subseJuentl&, for private respondent 'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er to be reco(ni6ed asa-on( his heirs, if such is the case in fact.

Petitioners# ar(u-ent, that the prohibition a(ainst a decedent or his estate fro- bein( apart& defendant in a civil action77applies to a special proceedin( such as the settle-ent ofthe estate of the deceased, is -isplaced. Cnli"e a civil action %hich has definite adverseparties, a special proceedin( has no definite adverse part&. The definitions of a civil

action and a special proceedin(, respectivel&, in the Rules illustrate this difference. ' civilaction, in %hich ;a part& sues another for the enforce-ent or protection of a ri(ht, or theprevention or redress of a %ron(;7:necessaril& has definite adverse parties, %ho areeither the plaintiff or defendant.70On the other hand, a special proceedin(, ;b& %hich apart& see"s to establish a status, ri(ht, or a particular fact,;7+has one definite part&, %hopetitions or applies for a declaration of a status, ri(ht, or particular fact, but no definiteadverse part&. In the case at bar, it bears e-phasis that the estate of the decedent is notbein( sued for an& cause of action. 's a special proceedin(, the purpose of the settle-entof the estate of the decedent is to deter-ine all the assets of the estate,7pa& itsliabilities,7@and to distribute the residual to those entitled to the sa-e.7/

Doc"et FeesPetitioners# third ar(u-ent, that 4urisdiction %as not validl& acJuired for non8pa&-ent ofdoc"et fees, is untenable. Petitioners point to private respondents# petition in theproceedin( before the court a quo, %hich contains an alle(ation esti-atin( the decedent#sestate as the basis for the conclusion that %hat private respondents paid as doc"et fees%as insufficient. Petitioners# ar(u-ent essentiall& involves t%o aspects< => %hether thecler" of court correctl& assessed the doc"et fees? and =)> %hether private respondents paidthe correct assess-ent of the doc"et fees.

Filin( the appropriate initiator& pleadin( and the pa&-ent of the prescribed doc"et feesvest a trial court %ith 4urisdiction over the sub4ect -atter.:*If the part& filin( the case paidless than the correct a-ount for the doc"et fees because that %as the a-ount assessed b&the cler" of court, the responsibilit& of -a"in( a deficienc& assess-ent lies %ith the sa-ecler" of court.:In such a case, the lo%er court concerned %ill not auto-aticall& lose4urisdiction, because of a parts reliance on the cler" of court#s insufficient assess-ent ofthe doc"et fees.:)'s ;ever& citi6en has the ri(ht to assu-e and trust that a public officerchar(ed b& la% %ith certain duties "no%s his duties and perfor-s the- in accordance%ith la%,; the part& filin( the case cannot be penali6ed %ith the cler" of court#s
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt42


6/10

insufficient assess-ent.:7Bo%ever, the part& concerned %ill be reJuired to pa& thedeficienc&.::

In the case at bar, petitioners did not present the cler" of court#s assess-ent of the doc"etfees. Moreover, the records do not include this assess-ent. There can be no deter-ination

of %hether private respondents correctl& paid the doc"et fees %ithout the cler" of court#sassess-ent.

Aception to Notice of Bearin(

Petitioners# fourth ar(u-ent, that private respondents# -otion for reconsideration beforethe Shari#a District !ourt is defective for lac" of a notice of hearin(, -ust fail as theuniJue circu-stances in the present case constitute an eAception to this reJuire-ent. TheRules reJuire ever& %ritten -otion to be set for hearin( b& the applicant and to addressthe notice of hearin( to all parties concerned.:0The Rules also provide that ;no %ritten-otion set for hearin( shall be acted upon b& the court %ithout proof of service

thereof.;:+

Bo%ever, the Rules allo% a liberal construction of its provisions ;in order topro-ote Lthe ob4ective of securin( a 4ust, speed&, and ineApensive disposition of ever&action and proceedin(.;:Moreover, this !ourt has upheld a liberal constructionspecificall& of the rules of notice of hearin( in cases %here ;a ri(id application %ill resultin a -anifest failure or -iscarria(e of 4ustice especiall& if a part& successfull& sho%s thatthe alle(ed defect in the Juestioned final and eAecutor& 4ud(-ent is not apparent on itsface or fro- the recitals contained therein.;:@In these eAceptional cases, the !ourtconsiders that ;no part& can even clai- a vested ri(ht in technicalities,; and for thisreason, cases should, as -uch as possible, be decided on the -erits rather than ontechnicalities.:/

The case at bar falls under this eAception. To den& the Shari#a District !ourt of anopportunit& to deter-ine %hether it has 4urisdiction over a petition for the settle-ent ofthe estate of a decedent alle(ed to be a Musli- %ould also den& its inherent po%er as acourt to control its process to ensure confor-it& %ith the la% and 4ustice. To sanctionsuch a situation si-pl& because of a lapse in fulfillin( the notice reJuire-ent %ill resultin a -iscarria(e of 4ustice.

In addition, the present case calls for a liberal construction of the rules on notice ofhearin(, because the ri(hts of the petitioners %ere not affected. This !ourt has held thatan eAception to the rules on notice of hearin( is %here it appears that the ri(hts of theadverse part& %ere not affected.0*The purpose for the notice of hearin( coincides %ithprocedural due process,0for the court to deter-ine %hether the adverse part& a(rees orob4ects to the -otion, as the Rules do not fiA an& period %ithin %hich to file a repl& oropposition.0)In probate proceedin(s, ;%hat the la% prohibits is not the absence ofprevious notice, but the absolute absence thereof and lac" of opportunit& to be heard.;07In the case at bar, as evident fro- the Shari#a District !ourt#s order dated $anuar& ,)**+, petitioners# counsel received a cop& of the -otion for reconsideration in Juestion.Petitioners %ere certainl& not denied an opportunit& to stud& the ar(u-ents in the said-otion as the& filed an opposition to the sa-e. Since the Shari#a District !ourt reset the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#fnt53


7/10

hearin( for the -otion for reconsideration in the sa-e order, petitioners %ere not deniedthe opportunit& to ob4ect to the said -otion in a hearin(. Ta"en to(ether, thesecircu-stances sho% that the purpose for the rules of notice of hearin(, proceduralprocess, %as dul& observed.

Prescription and Filiation

Petitioners# fifth ar(u-ent is pre-ature. '(ain, the Shari#a District !ourt has not &etdeter-ined %hether it has 4urisdiction to settle the estate of the decedent. In the event thata special proceedin( for the settle-ent of the estate of a decedent is pendin(, Juestionsre(ardin( heirship, includin( prescription in relation to reco(nition and filiation, shouldbe raised and settled in the said proceedin(.0:The court, in its capacit& as a probate court,has 4urisdiction to declare %ho are the heirs of the decedent. 00In the case at bar, thedeter-ination of the heirs of the decedent depends on an affir-ative ans%er to theJuestion of %hether the Shari#a District !ourt has 4urisdiction over the estate of thedecedent.

IN *IE( (!EREO', the petition is DNID. The Orders of the Shari#a District!ourt, dated 'u(ust )), )**+ and Septe-ber ), )**+ respectivel&, are 'FFIRMD.!ost a(ainst petitioners.

SO ORDRD.

RN'TO S. PCNO!hief $ustice

E !ON!CR.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt21


9/10

))Heirs of Celso Amarante v. Court of Appeals, H.R. No. +7@+, Ma& ), //*,@0 S!R' 0@0, 0/:.

)7Musa v. Moson, H.R. No. /00:, 'u(ust +, //, )** S!R' 0, /.

):

Vda. de Manalo v. Court of Appeals,supra note ), at +).)0Salas v. Castro, H.R. No. **:+, Dece-ber ), //), )+ S!R' /@, )*:.

)+Hilado v. Chavez, H.R. No. 7::), Septe-ber )), )**:, :7@ S!R' +)7, +:.

)Salas v. Castro,supra note )0.

)@Vda. de Manalo v. !ourt of 'ppeals, supra note ), at +7.

)/Salas v. Castro,supra note )0.

7*Mamadsual v. Moson, H.R. No. /)00, Septe-ber ), //*, /* S!R' @), @.

In the above-entioned case, the !ourt held that the Special Rules ofProcedure in Shari#a !ourts, I4ra8at8al8Maha"i- al Shari#a, proscribe ;thefilin( of a -otion to dis-iss in lieu of an ans%er %hich %ould stop therunnin( of the period to file an ans%er and cause undue dela&.;

7Musa v. Moson,supra note )7, at )8)).

7)Vda. de Manalo v. Court of Appeals,supra note ), at +0.

77Ventura v. Hon. Militante,7: Phil. 0+) =///>.

7:Rules of !ourt, Rule , Sec. 7, par. =a>.

70Rules of !ourt, Rule 7, Sec. .

7+Rules of !ourt, Rule , Sec. 7, par. =c>.

7Pacific an!in" Corporation #mplo$ees %r"anization v. Court of Appeals, 7)Phil. 0@, 0/7 =//0>.

7@Id.

7/Vda. de Manalo v. Court of Appeals,supra note ), at +0.

:*Sun Insurance %ffice, &td. v. Asuncion, H.R. Nos. //787@, Februar& 7, /@/,* S!R' ):, )@0.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt40


10/10

:Rivera v. 'el Rosario, H.R. No. ::/7:, $anuar& 0, )**:, :/ S!R' +)+,+70.

:)Id.

:7

A$ala &and, Inc. v. Spouses Carpo,7// Phil. 7), 77: =)***>, citin"Se"ovia v.arrios, 0 Phil. +:, + =/:+>.

::(il)#state *olf and 'evelopment, Inc. v. +avarro, H.R. No. 0)00, $une )/,)**, 0)+ S!R' 0, +.

:0Rules of !ourt, Rule 0, Secs. :80.

:+Rules of !ourt, Rule 0, Sec. +.

:Rules of !ourt, Rule ), Sec. +.

:@Vlason #nterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals,7+/ Phil. )+/, )// =///>.

:/*oldloop Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,H.R. No. //:7, 'u(ust ,//), )) S!R' :/@, 0*:.

0*Victor$ &iner, Inc. v. Malinias,H.R. No. 0*, Ma& )/, )**, 0)7 S!R' )/,)/8)/).

0Vlason #nterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals,supra note :@, at )//87**.

0)

Victor$ &iner, Inc. v. Malinias,supra note 0*, at )/).07'e ora, et al. v. -an, et al., /7 Phil. +, =/07>.

0:Portu"al v. Portu"al)eltran, H.R. No. 00000, 'u(ust +, )**0, :+ S!R'@:, /@.

00riarte v. Court of (irst Instance +e"ros %ccidental, et al., :: Phil. )*0, )08)+ =/*>.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_174975_2009.html#rnt55

monater et al vs sharia district court et al, gr no 174975, 01-20-2009 - copy

Documents