ESTRELLITA J. TAMANO V. HON. RODOLFO A.
ORTIZ, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 126603 JUNE 29, 1998
FACTS:
Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Tamano)
married Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda)
in civil rites on May 31, 1958. Tamano also
married Estrellita J. Tamano (Estrellita) in civil
rites on June 2, 1993, prior to his death on May
18, 1994. Zorayda, joined by her son Adib A.
Tamano, filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage between Tamano and
Estrellita, alleging bigamy.
Estrellita moved to dismiss the complaint,
arguing that only a party to the marriage could
file an action for annulment and that the
jurisdiction belonged to the shari'a courts under
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. The Regional
Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to dismiss,
ruling that since Estrellita and Tamano were
married under the Civil Code, the RTC had
jurisdiction. Estrellita's motion for
reconsideration was also denied.
Estrellita appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the RTC's decision. Estrellita
contended that shari'a courts had jurisdiction
over the case.
ISSUE:
Whether the shari'a courts have jurisdiction over
a case involving a marriage celebrated under
both civil and Muslim laws.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial
Court had jurisdiction over the case. Under the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, RTCs have
jurisdiction over actions involving marriage and
marital relations. Personal actions, such as a
complaint for the declaration of nullity of
marriage, may be commenced and tried where
the plaintiff or defendant resides.
The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in the complaint.
Since the complaint alleged that Estrellita and
Tamano were married under the Civil Code, the
Civil Code applied to the case. Even if the
marriage was also conducted under Muslim laws,
the jurisdiction still fell under the general original
jurisdiction of the RTCs.
Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not address
marriages celebrated under both civil and
Muslim laws, so shari'a courts do not have
exclusive jurisdiction in such cases. The RTCs
retain their general original jurisdiction under BP
Blg. 129.
Therefore, the petition was denied, and the
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
RTC's orders was upheld. The case was remanded
to the RTC for further proceedings.
DOCTRINE:
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in
the complaint. Courts have jurisdiction based on
the subject matter and nature of the action as
specified in the law. In cases where a marriage is
celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws, the
jurisdiction falls under the general original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Shari'a
courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction in such
cases unless specifically provided for by law.
JOCELYN RULONA-AL AWADHI V. HON.
ABDULMAJID J. ASTIH AND NABIL AL-AWADHI
G.R. NO. 81969 SEPTEMBER 26, 1988
FACTS:
Jocelyn Rulona-Al Awadhi filed a petition for
review on certiorari against the Sharia Judicial
District Court of Marawi City. The court had
denied her motion to dismiss Special
Proceedings No. 011-87, a petition filed by her
husband, Nabil Al-Awadhi, for custody and
guardianship of their minor children.
Jocelyn and Nabil were married in Kuwait on
August 1, 1981. Jocelyn, a Filipino nurse and a
Roman Catholic, resided with their children in
Sta. Cruz, Calape, Bohol, while Nabil, a Kuwaiti
student, lived in Tagbiliran City.
Jocelyn initiated an action for support and
guardianship in the Regional Trial Court, Branch
2, Tagbilaran City (Civil Case No. 4170). She was
appointed the children's guardian. However,
Nabil filed a petition for custody and
guardianship in the Fourth Sharia District Court
in Marawi City, docketed as Special Proceeding
No. 011-87.
Jocelyn moved to dismiss the Sharia court
petition, citing lack of jurisdiction, another
pending action, and improper venue. The Sharia
court denied the motion, relying on Section 13 of
the Special Rules of Procedure in the Sharia
Courts, which disallowed motions to dismiss.
Jocelyn's motion for reconsideration was also
denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari,
arguing the lack of jurisdiction of the Sharia
District Court over the parties and the subject
matter.
 The Court emphasized that once a court assumes
jurisdiction over a case, its jurisdiction continues
Article 13, Title II of the Code of Muslim Personal
until the case is finished. The Sharia court should
Laws of the Philippines (PD 1083) was cited, have recognized its lack of jurisdiction over the
emphasizing that the Muslim Code applies to parties and promptly dismissed the action. The
Muslims or cases where only the male party is procedural rule against filing a motion to dismiss
Muslim, and the marriage is solemnized in should not bar the dismissal for lack of
accordance with Muslim law or the Code. jurisdiction.
Jocelyn pointed out that Nabil, a Kuwaiti The Court annulled all proceedings in Special
national, resided in Tagbilaran City, not within
Proceeding No. 011-87 and dismissed the
the Fourth Sharia District, and that their Muslim petition therein. Costs were imposed against the
marriage was solemnized in Kuwait, not in the private respondent, Nabil Al-Awadhi.
Philippines. She argued that the Sharia court had
no jurisdiction over their marriage and the DOCTRINE:
custody of their children.
A court's lack of jurisdiction over the parties and
ISSUE: the subject matter can be challenged at any time
and at any stage of the action. Procedural rules
Whether the Sharia District Court has jurisdiction should not prevent the dismissal of an action for
over the petition for custody and guardianship. lack of jurisdiction when the jurisdictional
RULING: infirmity is evident on the face of the complaint
itself. Once a court assumes jurisdiction over a
The Supreme Court granted the petition for case, its jurisdiction continues until the case is
certiorari. It ruled that the Sharia District Court finished.
lacked jurisdiction over the case. The key points
were:
1. The husband, Nabil, was a Kuwaiti national,
not a Philippine Muslim, and resided in
Tagbilaran City, not within the Fourth Sharia
District.
2. The wife, Jocelyn, was a Filipino citizen and a
non-Muslim (Roman Catholic Christian).
3. Their Muslim marriage was solemnized in
Kuwait, not in any part of the Philippines.
4. They did not reside within the Fourth Sharia
District.