tamano v ortiz et al, gr no 126603, 06-29-1998 - copy

8/20/2019 Tamano v Ortiz Et Al, GR No 126603, 06-29-1998 - Copy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tamano-v-ortiz-et-al-gr-no-126603-06-29-1998-copy 1/4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 126603 June 29, 1998

ESTRELLITA J. TAMANO, petitioner,

vs.

HON. RODOLO A. ORTI!, P"e#$%$n& Ju%&e, RTC'(". 89, )ue*on C$+, HAJA

PUTRI !ORA-DA A. TAMANO, ADI( A. TAMANO n% +/e HON. COURT O

APPEALS, respondents.

(ELLOSILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari sees to reverse and set aside the decision of the

!ourt of "ppeals of #$ Septe%ber &''( in !")*.R. SP. No. #'(+( hich affir%ed the

decision of the Re-ional Trial !ourt)r. /', 0ue1on !it2, den2in- the %otion to dis%iss

as ell as the %otion for reconsideration filed b2 petitioner 3strellita 4. Ta%ano.

On #& Ma2 &'+/ Senator Ma%intal "bdul 4abar Ta%ano 5Ta%ano6 %arried private

respondent 7a8a Putri 9ora2da ". Ta%ano 59ora2da6 in civil rites. Their %arria-e

supposedl2 re%ained valid and subsistin- until his death on &/ Ma2 &'':. Prior to hisdeath, particularl2 on ; 4une &''#, Ta%ano also %arried petitioner 3strellita 4. Ta%ano

53strellita6 in civil rites in Malaban-, <anao del Sur.

On ;# Nove%ber &'': private respondent 9ora2da 8oined b2 her son "dib ". Ta%ano

5"dib6 filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullify of Marriage of Ta%ano and 3strellitaon the -round that it as bi-a%ous. The2 contended that Ta%ano and 3strellita

%isrepresented the%selves as divorced and single, respectivel2, thus %ain- the entries in

the %arria-e contract false and fraudulent.

Private respondents alle-ed that Ta%ano never divorced 9ora2da and that 3strellita as

not single hen she %arried Ta%ano as the decision annullin- her previous %arria-e ithRo%eo !. <lave never beca%e final and e=ecutor2 for non)co%pliance ith publication

re>uire%ents.

3strellita filed a %otion to dis%iss alle-in- that the Re-ional Trial !ourt of 0ue1on !it2as ithout 8urisdiction over the sub8ect and nature of the action. She alle-ed that ?onl2 a

part2 to the %arria-e? could file an action for annulment of marriage a-ainst the other

spouse, 1 hence, it as onl2 Ta%ano ho could file an action for annul%ent of their



%arria-e. Petitioner lieise contended that since Ta%ano and 9ora2da ere both

Musli%s and %arried in Musli% rites the 8urisdiction to hear and tr2 the instant case as

vested in the shari'a courts pursuant to "rt. &++ of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.

The loer court denied the %otion to dis%iss and ruled that the instant case as properl2

co-ni1able b2 the Re-ional Trial !ourt of 0ue1on !it2 since 3strellita and Ta%ano ere%arried in accordance ith the !ivil !ode and not e=clusivel2 in accordance ith PD

No. &$/# 2 or the Code of Muslim Personal laws. The %otion for reconsideration aslieise denied@ hence, petitioner filed the instant petition ith this !ourt seein- to set

aside the &/ 4ul2 &''+ order of respondent presidin- 8ud-e of the RT!)r. /', 0ue1on

!it2, den2in- petitionerAs %otion to dis%iss and the ;; "u-ust &''+ order den2in-reconsideration thereof.

In a Resolution dated &# Dece%ber &''+ e referred the case to the !ourt of "ppeals for

consolidation ith *.R. No. &&/#B&. 9ora2da and "dib ". Ta%ano hoever filed a

%otion, hich the !ourt of "ppeals -ranted, to resolve the Complaint for Declaration of

Nullity of Marriage ahead of the other consolidated cases.

The !ourt of "ppeals ruled that the instant case ould fall under the e=clusive

8urisdiction of shari'a courts onl2 hen filed in places here there are shari'a court. ut

in places here there are no shari'a courts, lie 0ue1on !it2, the instant case could properl2 be filed before the Re-ional Trial !ourt.

Petitioner is no before us reiteratin- her earlier ar-u%ent that it is the shariAa court and

not the Re-ional Trial !ourt hich has 8urisdiction over the sub8ect and nature of theaction.

Cnder The Judiciary Reorganiation !ct of "#$%,

3

Re-ional Trial !ourts have 8urisdiction over all actions involvin- the contract of %arria-e and %arital relations.

Personal actions, such as the instant co%plaint for declaration of nullit2 of %arria-e, %a2 be co%%enced and tried here the plaintiff or an2 of the principal plaintiffs resides, or

here the defendant or an2 of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the

plaintiff . There should be no >uestion b2 no that hat deter%ines the nature of an

action and correspondin-l2 the court hich has 8urisdiction over it are the alle-ations%ade b2 the plaintiff in this case. 6 In the co%plaint for declaration of nullit2 of %arria-e

filed b2 private respondents herein, it as alle-ed that 3strellita and Ta%ano ere

%arried in accordance ith the provisions of the !ivil !ode. Never as it %entioned that3strellita and Ta%ano ere %arried under Musli% las or PD No. &$/#. Interestin-l2,

3strellita never stated in her Motion to Dismiss that she and Ta%ano ere %arried under

Musli% las. That she as in fact %arried to Ta%ano under Musli% las as first%entioned onl2 in her Motion for Reconsideration.

Nevertheless, the Re-ional Trial !ourt as not divested of 8urisdiction to hear and tr2 the

instant case despite the alle-ation in the Motion for Reconsideration that 3strellita and

Ta%ano ere lieise %arried in Musli% rites. This is because a courtAs 8urisdictioncannot be %ade to depend upon defenses set up in the anser, in a %otion to dis%iss, or



in a %otion for reconsideration, but onl2 upon the alle-ations of the co%plaint.

4urisdiction over the sub8ect %atter of a case is deter%ined fro% the alle-ations of the

co%plaint as the latter co%prises a concise state%ent of the ulti%ate facts constitutin- the plaintiffAs causes of action. 8

Petitioner ar-ues that the shari'a courts have 8urisdiction over the instant suit pursuant to"rt. &#, Title II, PD No. &$/#, 9 hich provides

"rt. &#. !pplication. 5&6 The provisions of this Title shall appl2 to%arria-e and divorce herein both parties are Musli%s, or herein onl2

the %ale part2 is a Musli% and the %arria-e is sole%ni1ed in accordance

ith Musli% la or this !ode in an2 part of the Philippines.

5;6 In case of a %arria-e beteen a Musli% and a non)Musli%,sole%ni1ed not in accordance ith Musli% la or this !ode, the !ivil

!ode of the Philippines shall appl2.

5#6 Sub8ect to the provisions of the precedin- para-raphs, the essential

re>uisites and le-al i%pedi%ents to %arria-e, divorce, paternit2 andfiliation, -uardianship and custod2 of %inors, support and %aintenance,

clai%s for custo%ar2 doer 5%ahr6, betrothal, breach of contract to %arr2,

sole%ni1ation and re-istration of %arria-e and divorce, ri-hts andobli-ations beteen husband and ife, parental authorit2, and the propert2

relations beteen husband and ife shall be -overned b2 this !ode and

other applicable Musli% las.

"s alle-ed in the co%plaint, petitioner and Ta%ano ere %arried in accordance ith the

!ivil !ode. 7ence, contrar2 to the position of petitioner, the !ivil !ode is applicable inthe instant case. "ssu%in- that indeed petitioner and Ta%ano ere lieise %arried

under Musli% las, the sa%e ould still fall under the -eneral ori-inal 8urisdiction of theRe-ional Trial !ourts.

"rticle &# of PD No. &$/# does not provide for a situation here the parties ere %arried

both in civil and Musli% rites. !onse>uentl2, the shari'a courts are not vested ith

ori-inal and e&clusive 8urisdiction hen it co%es to %arria-es celebrated under oth civiland Musli% las. !onse>uentl2, the Re-ional Trial !ourts are not divested of their

-eneral ori-inal 8urisdiction under Sec. &', par. 5(6 of P l-. &;' hich provides

Sec. &'. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. Re-ional Trial !ourts shalle=ercise e=clusive ori-inal 8urisdictionE . . . 5(6 In all cases not ithin thee=clusive 8urisdiction of an2 court, tribunal, person or bod2 e=ercisin-

8udicial or >uasi)8udicial functions . . .

73R3FOR3, the instant petition is D3NI3D. The decision of the !ourt of "ppeals

sustainin- the &/ 4ul2 &''+ and ;; "u-ust &''+ orders of the Re-ional Trial !ourt r./', 0ue1on !it2, den2in- the %otion to dis%iss and reconsideration thereof, is



"FFIRM3D. <et the records of this case be i%%ediatel2 re%anded to the court of ori-in

for further proceedin-s until ter%inated.

SO ORD3R3D.

Davide( Jr)( *itug( Panganian and +uisuming( JJ)( concur)

oo+no+e#

& Motion to Dis%iss, p. #@ Rollo, p. +;.

; Order, p. ;@ Records, p. ;$.

# Sec. B', P &;' as a%ended.

: Sec. &', .P. l-. &;', as a%ended, otherise non as The 4udiciar2

Reor-ani1ation "ct of &'/$.

+ Sec. ;, Rule :, &''B Rules of !ivil Procedure, as a%ended.

( Sandel v. !ourt of "ppeals, *.R. No. &&B;+$, &' Septe%ber &''(, ;(;

S!R" &$'.

B ,d ., p. &&$.

/ ernardo v. !ourt of "ppeals, *.R. No. &;$B#$, ;/ October &''(, ;(#S!R" (($.

' The !ode of Musli% Personal <as of the Philippines.

tamano v ortiz et al, gr no 126603, 06-29-1998 - copy

Documents