Spouses Maliga vs. Spouses Tingao, G.R. No. 211089, July 11, 2023
Topic: Jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts
Facts:
Parties:
- Petitioners: Spouses Dr. John O. Maliga and Annielyn Dela Cruz Maliga
- Respondents: Spouses Abraham N. Tingao and Bai Shor Tingao, and Dimasurang Unte, Jr.
Background:
Between February 2009 and October 2012, Petitioner Annielyn Dela Cruz Maliga obtained series of loans from respondent Dimasurang Unte, Jr. The initial loan was for P110,000.00 with 15% monthly interest, for which Annielyn received P93,000.00 after Unte deducted first month’s interest in advance. She later obtained additional loans from Unte, with interest rate increasing to 25% per month. Despite her financial difficulties, Annielyn continued to pay until she could no longer afford even the interest. Unte continued to demand payments.
In 2009, Annielyn also obtained a loan from respondent spouses Abraham N. Tingao and Bai Shor Tingao for P330,000.00 with 10% monthly interest. The Tingaos released P297,000.00 after deducting the first month’s interest. Annielyn made regular interest payments until she could no longer do so.
Dr. John Maliga discovered the loans and the use of his personal checks and pharmacy checks to pay the loans. He calculated the Annielyn had paid P8,660,250.00 in interest to Unte and P1,452,000.00 in interest to the Tingaos, despite principal amounts being P1,965,000.00 and P330,000.00, respectively. Dr. Maliga instructed Annielyn to stop paying, but the respondents continued to demand payments, leading the petitioners to file separate complaints before the 5th Sharia District Court in Cotabato City.
Lower Court Decisions:
The SDC initially dismissed the complaint against Unte, agreeing that it lacked jurisdiction because the case involved the application of the Usury Law, which falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts. The SDC also dismissed the complaint against the Tingaos on the same grounds. The SDC held that while the parties are Muslims, the transactions involved usury, which is prohibited under Sharia Law, but the agreement still binds them. The SDC concluded that since PD1083 does not contain provisions on interest, the case should be resolved under the Usury Law and Civil Code by civil courts.
Petitioners’ Contentions:
Petitioners argued that the SDC erred in dismissing their complaints for lack of jurisdiction. They contended that the SDC has jurisdiction over the subject matter because the parties are Muslims, and the transactions involve customary contracts. They also argued that the SDC should have applied Shari’a Law, which prohibits usury, and that the SDC should have allowed them to present evidence on the applicability of Sharia Law.
Respondents’ Contentions:
Respondents argued that the SDC correctly dismissed the complaints because the transactions involved usury, which is governed by the Usury Law and Civil Code, not Sharia Law. They contended that the SDC lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.
ISSUE
Whether the SDC correctly dismissed that complaints for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
The SC granted the petition. The Court held that the SDC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints.
The Court reversed and set aside the SDC’s orders dismissing the complaints and remanded the cases to the SDC for further proceedings.
“It is settled that to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action, an examination of the complaint is essential. The nature of an action, and which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations in the complaint, regardless if the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are controlling. 26 “Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of their claims.”
Jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts Matters over which Shari’a District Courts have original jurisdiction were enumerated in PD 1083. 28 Art. 143 thereof provides:
Article 143. Original jurisdiction. —
(1) The Shari’a District Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over:(a) All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under this Code;
x x x
(c) Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the cancellation or correction of entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI of Book Two of this Code;
(d) All actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shall govern their relations; and
(e) All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
(2) Concurrently with existing civil courts, the Shari’a District Court shall have original jurisdiction over:
(a) Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of a family home, change of name and commitment of an insane person to an asylum;
(b) All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph 1
(d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Court; and
(c) All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties are Muslims or the property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims.
Notably, with the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 11054, otherwise known as the Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, those actions where the SDC had concurrent jurisdiction with the civil courts have already been considered as within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the SDCs in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region,
Section 6, Article X of said RA provides:
Section 6. Jurisdiction of the Shari’ah District Courts. — The Shari’ah District Courts in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases where either or both are Muslims: Provided, That the non-Muslim party voluntarily submits to its jurisdiction:
(a) All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, and paternity and filiation arising under Presidential Decree No. 1083;
x x x
(d) All actions arising from customary and Shari’ah compliant contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they failed to specify the law governing their relations;
x x x
(f) Petition for the constitution of a family home, change of name, and commitment of an insane person to an asylum;
(g) All other personal and real actions not falling under the jurisdiction of the Shari’ah Circuit Courts wherein the parties involved are Muslims, except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court;
(h) All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties are Muslims residing in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region or the property involved belongs exclusively to Muslim and is located in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region;
(i) All civil actions under Shari’ah law enacted by the Parliament involving real property in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region where the assessed value of the property exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00); and
(j) All civil actions, if they have not specified in the agreement which law shall govern their relations where the demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). (Emphasis supplied.)
The SDC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint Under Art. 143 (1) of PD 1083, the SDC has original jurisdiction over the complaint if it is sufficiently alleged that: (1) the action arose from a customary contract; (2) the parties are Muslims; and (3) the parties have not specified which law shall govern their relations.
As to actions not involving customary contracts, Art. 143 (2) (b) of PD 1083 provides that these may still be adjudicated by SDCs provided that the parties are Muslims. Thus, the SDC may exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the civil courts when the following conditions are met: (1) the complaint is a personal or real action, but not one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer; (2) the parties are Muslims; and (3) the action does not fall under Art. 143 (1) (d) of PD 1083.
In effect, Art. 143 (2) (b) of PD 1083 acts as a catch-all provision that primarily hinges jurisdiction on the parties involved, and does not limit the jurisdiction of SDCs to specific kinds of action. Thus, regardless of the subject matter of the action, the SDC may exercise jurisdiction so long as the parties are Muslims.
More case digests here: https://kaidarul.com/category/law-school/case-digests
