TOMAWIS v. HON.

BALINDONG
G.R. No. 182434 | March 5, 2010
Shari’a Courts

SUMMARY: Private respondents filed with the Shari’a District Court (SDC) an action for quieting of
title of a parcel of land located in Banggolo, Marawi City, against petitioner Sultan Tomawis and one
Mangoda Radia. Tomawis, as one of his defenses, raised SDC’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the case. He argued that the regular civil court, not SDC, had such jurisdiction pursuant to BP 129
(Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). Respondent Judge Balindong, by Order of April 1, 2003, denied
the motion. Judge Balindong asserted the SDC’s original jurisdiction over the case, concurrently with the
RTC, by force of Art. 143, paragraph 2(b) of PD 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines).
Tomawis’ subsequent motions to dismiss and motion for reconsideration on the same ground of SDC’s
want jurisdiction were denied by the SDC.
On appeal to the CA, Tomawis’ petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition under Rule 65
to nullify, on jurisdictional grounds, the Orders of SDC, was dismissed on the ground that the CA was “not
empowered to resolve decisions, order or final judgment of the SDCs.” On Jan. 29, 2008, Tomawis
interposed before the SDC another motion to dismiss on the same grounds as his previous motions to
dismiss. The motion was rejected by Judge Balinding, denying the motion with finality. In fine, petitioner
contends that Art. 143 of PD 1083, insofar as it granted the SDC concurrent jurisdiction over certain real
actions, was repealed by the BP 129 provisions adverted to.
The SC held that the allegations, as well as the relief sought by private respondents, the elimination
of the “cloud of doubts on the title of ownership” on the subject land, are within the SDC’s jurisdiction
to grant. The SDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions arising from contracts customary to
Muslims to the exclusion of the RTCs, as the exception under PD 1083, while both courts have concurrent
original jurisdiction over all other personal actions. Said jurisdictional conferment, found in Art. 143 of PD
1083, is applicable solely when both parties are Muslims and shall not be construed to operate to the
prejudice of a non-Muslim, who may be the opposing party against a Muslim. The case at bar is basically
a suit for recovery of possession and eventual reconveyance of real property which, under BP 129, as
amended, falls within the original jurisdiction of either the RTC or MTC. However, a reading of the
pertinent provisions of BP 129 and PD 1083 shows that the former, a law of general application to civil
courts, has no application to, and does not repeal, the provisions found in PD 1083, a special law, which
only refers to Shari'a courts.

FACTS: Private respondents filed with the Shari’a District Court (SDC) an action for quieting of
title of a parcel of land located in Banggolo, Marawi City, against petitioner Sultan Tomawis and one
Mangoda Radia. Private respondents alleged that they were the absolute owners of the subject parcel of
land, being the legal heirs of Acraman Radia, who had always been in peaceful, continuous, and adverse
possession of the property. Tomawis, on the other hand, claimed to have assumed ownership of the property
after buying the same from Mangoda Radia, who, in turn, claimed that he inherited it from his late father.
In 1996, private respondents were informed that their land was leveled and a small houses built thereon
were removed with their permission upon the order of Tomawis. Private respondent further alleged that
they had been unlawfully deprived of their possession of the land, and Tomawis’ actions had cast a cloud
of doubt on their title.
Tomawis, as one of his defenses, raised SDC’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case. He argued that the regular civil court, not SDC, had such jurisdiction pursuant to BP 129 (Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980).
SDC: DENIED TOMAWIS’ MOTION (SDC has original jurisdiction)
Respondent Judge Balindong, by Order of April 1, 2003, denied the motion. Judge Balindong
asserted the SDC’s original jurisdiction over the case, concurrently with the RTC, by force of Art. 143,
paragraph 2(b) of PD 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines)1.
On June 16, 2005, Tomawis filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss with Prayer to Correct the Name
of Defendants to Read Sultan Yahya “Jerry” M. Tomawis & Mangoda M. Radia. Tomawis alleged that title
to or possession of real property or interest in it was clearly within in the original exclusive jurisdiction of
regular courts in consonance with existing law. The motion was, again, denied in July 13, 2005.
TOMAWIS’ MOTION FOR RECONSDIERATION DENIED
Tomawis later interposed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Cancel and Reset
the Continuation of Trial Until After the Resolution of the Pending Incident. Per Order dated Sept. 6, 2005,
the SDC denied Tomawis’ urgent motion for reconsideration and ordered the continuation of trial.
CA: DISMISSED TOMAWIS’ PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Tomawis repaired to the CA on a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition under Rule 65
to nullify, on jurisdictional grounds, the Orders of SDC. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that
the CA was “not empowered to resolve decisions, order or final judgment of the SDCs.” The CA held that
pursuant to Art. 145 of PD 1083, final decisions of the SDC are reviewable by the yet to be established
Sharia’a Appellate court. Pending the reorganization of the Sharia’a Appellate court, the CA ruled that such
intermediate appellate jurisdiction rests with the SC.
On Jan. 29, 2008, Tomawis interposed before the SDC another motion to dismiss on the same
grounds as his previous motions to dismiss. The motion was rejected by Judge Balinding, denying the
motion with finality.

ISSUE: Whether the SDC can validly take cognizance of the action for quieting of title of a parcel
of land.

HELD: YES. The allegations, as well as the relief sought by private respondents, the elimination
of the “cloud of doubts on the title of ownership” on the subject land, are within the SDC’s jurisdiction
to grant.
 Until such time that the Shari’a Appellate Court shall have been organized appeals or petitions from
final orders or decisions of the SDC filed with the CA shall be referred to a Special Division to be
organized in any of the CA stations preferably composed of Muslim CA Justices.
 For cases where only errors or questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the SC by
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the RoC.

1
PD 1083, Art. 143, Par. 1(d): The Shari’a District Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over: xxx
xxx xxx All actions arising form customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified
which law shall govern their relationship.

Par. 2(b): Concurrently with existing civil courts, the Shari’a District court shall have original jurisdiction
over: xxx xxx xxx All other person 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.
 o The instant petition, involving only a question of law on the jurisdiction of the SDC over
a complaint for quieting of title, was properly instituted before the Court.
 Brief background:
o June 17, 1948: Judiciary Act of 1948 (RA 296) was enacted. It vested the CFI with original
jurisdiction: “(b) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property,
or any interest therein, …”
o Feb. 4, 1977: PD 1083 created the Shari’a courts of limited jurisdiction. Jurisprudence has
classified Shari’a courts as “regular courts,” meaning they are part of the judicial
department.
o Aug. 14, 1981: BP 129 took effect, defining the jurisdiction of the RTCs: “exclusive
original jurisdiction…in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein…”
 Prior to the effectivity of BP 129, the SDC had, by virtue of PD 1083, original jurisdiction,
concurrently with the RTCs and MTCs, over all personal and real actions outside the purview of
Art. 143 (1)(d) of PD 1083, in which the parties involved were Muslims, except those for
ejectment.
 The case at bar is basically a suit for recovery of possession and eventual reconveyance of real
property which, under BP 129, as amended, falls within the original jurisdiction of either the
RTC or MTC.
 However, a reading of the pertinent provisions of BP 129 and PD 1083 shows that the former, a
law of general application to civil courts, has no application to, and does not repeal, the provisions
found in PD 1083, a special law, which only refers to Shari'a courts.
 The law creating the Shari’a courts is a special law interpreted for Filipino Muslims.
 A look at the scope of BP 129 clearly shows that Shari'a courts were not included in the reorganization
of courts that were formerly organized under RA 296.
 Applying the principle generalia specialbus non derogant (a general law does not nullify a special law),
PD 1083 is an exception to the general law, BP 129. The legislature has not made any express repeal
or modification of PD 1083.
 The SDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions arising from contracts customary to
Muslims to the exclusion of the RTCs, as the exception under PD 1083, while both courts have
concurrent original jurisdiction over all other personal actions. Said jurisdictional conferment,
found in Art. 143 of PD 1083, is applicable solely when both parties are Muslims and shall not be
construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim, who may be the opposing party against a
Muslim.