[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
131 views2 pages

Shari'a Court Jurisdiction Dispute

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1. Shari'a courts have concurrent jurisdiction over real and personal actions involving Muslim parties, except for forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. 2. However, for a Shari'a court to have jurisdiction, both parties must be Muslim. If one party is not Muslim, the case must be filed in a regular court. 3. In this case, the Shari'a District Court did not have jurisdiction over the private respondents' complaint against the Municipality of Tangkal because the municipality, as a public corporation, cannot be considered Muslim based on the religion of its officials. The case should have been filed in the regular Regional Trial Court.

Uploaded by

Ton Ton Cananea
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
131 views2 pages

Shari'a Court Jurisdiction Dispute

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1. Shari'a courts have concurrent jurisdiction over real and personal actions involving Muslim parties, except for forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. 2. However, for a Shari'a court to have jurisdiction, both parties must be Muslim. If one party is not Muslim, the case must be filed in a regular court. 3. In this case, the Shari'a District Court did not have jurisdiction over the private respondents' complaint against the Municipality of Tangkal because the municipality, as a public corporation, cannot be considered Muslim based on the religion of its officials. The case should have been filed in the regular Regional Trial Court.

Uploaded by

Ton Ton Cananea
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[G.R. No. 193340. January 11, 2017.

]
THE MUNICIPALITY OF TANGKAL, PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE, petitioner,
vs. HON. RASAD B. BALINDONG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Shari'a District
Court, 4th Judicial District, Marawi City, and HEIRS OF THE LATE MACALABO
ALOMPO, represented by SULTAN DIMNANG B. ALOMPO, respondents.

JARDELEZA, J.:

FACTS:

The private respondents, heirs of the late Macalabo Alompo, filed a Complaint
with the Shari'a District Court of Marawi City (Shari'a District Court) against the
petitioner, Municipality of Tangkal, for recovery of possession and ownership of a parcel
of land with an area of approximately 25 hectares located at Barangay Banisilon,
Tangkal, Lanao del Norte. They alleged that Macalabo was the owner of the land, and
that in 1962, he entered into an agreement with the Municipality of Tangkal allowing the
latter to "borrow" the land to pave the way for the construction of the municipal hall and
a health center building. The agreement allegedly imposed a condition upon the
Municipality of Tangkal to pay the value of the land within 35 years, or until 1997;
otherwise, ownership of the land would revert to Macalabo. Private respondents claimed
that the Municipality of Tangkal neither paid the value of the land within the agreed
period nor returned the land to its owner. Thus, they prayed that the land bereturned to
them as successors-in-interest of Macalabo.

The Municipality of Tangkal filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss 3 on the ground of


improper venue and lack of jurisdiction. It argued that since it has no religious affiliation
and represents no cultural or ethnic tribe, it cannot be considered as a Muslim under the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Moreover, since the complaint for recovery of land is a
real action, it should have been filed in the appropriate Regional Trial Court of Lanao del
Norte.

ISSUE:

A. Whether or not the Shari’a Courts have jurisdiction over real and personal actions.
B. Whether or not the Shari’a District Court should take cognizance of the private
respondent’s complaint.

RULING:

As regards the first issue, yes. The Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines vests concurrent jurisdiction upon Shari'a district courts over personal and
real actions wherein the parties involved are Muslims, except those for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer. Consistent with the purpose of the law to provide for an effective
administration and enforcement of Muslim personal laws among Muslims, it has a
catch-all provision granting Shari'a district courts original jurisdiction over personal and
real actions except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. There is, however, a
limit to the general jurisdiction of Shari'a district courts over matters ordinarily
cognizable by regular courts: such jurisdiction may only be invoked if both parties are
Muslims. If one party is not a Muslim, the action must be filed before the regular courts.

With regard to the second issue, No. The Shari’a District Court cannot take
cognizance over the complaint of private respondents. It erroneously attributed the
religious affiliation of the Mayor to the Municipality of Tangkal. . It is an elementary
principle that a municipality has a personality that is separate and distinct from its
mayor, vice-mayor, sanggunian, and other officers composing it. 8 And under no
circumstances can this corporate veil be pierced on purely religious considerations —
as the Shari'a District Court has done — without violating the inviolability of the
separation of Church and State enshrined in the Constitution

You might also like