SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR.
, petitioner - However, the CA corrected itself that
v her admission that she is a Roman
ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS,
respondent
FACTS:
- On December 29, 1992, Petitioner
Samson R. Pacasum (Pacasum) and
respondent Atty. Marietta D.
Zamoranos (Zamoranos) were
married.
- However, Pacasum discovered that
Zamoranos was previously married
to one Jesus De Guzman (De
Guzman) on July 30, 1982.
- On December 14, 2004, Pacasum
filed an administrative complaint for
disgraceful and immoral conduct
against Zamoranos on the ground
that she had contracted a bigamous
marriage.
- Prior to her marriage with De
Guzman, she had converted to
Islam.
- In her answer, Zamoranos raised as
a defense the dissolution of her
previous marriage in 1983 under the
Muslim Code.
- The CSC dismissed the complaint
because Pacasum failed to question
the validity of the Divorce Decree of
Zamoranos and De Guzman, which
is fatal in his case.
- Pacasum moved for reconsideration,
but this was denied by the CSC.
- On appeal with CA, the CA initially
granted the petition, relying on the
consistency of Zamoranos’
admission whether she is a Muslim
or a Roman Catholic.
Catholic is made after her marriage
with Pacasum, which is an
undisputed fact.
- With this, the CA held that a
collateral attack against a Divorce
Decree, such as the administrative
complaint filed by the petitioner
herein, cannot be countenanced.
- Pacasum then filed this petition for
review on certiorari arguing that the
Shari'a court had no jurisdiction to
dissolve Zamoranos' first marriage.
Consequently, her marriage to
Pacasum was bigamous.
ISSUE:
- W/N the Shari’a court had no
jurisdiction to dissolve Zamoranos’
first marriage.
RULING:
- The Supreme Court is in
NEGATIVE.
- The Muslim Code recognizes divorce
in marriages between Muslims, and
mixed marriages wherein only the
male party is a Muslim and the
marriage is solemnized in
accordance with Muslim law or the
Muslim Code in any part of the
Philippines.
* You can see the modes of effecting divorce
in Article 45 of the Muslim Code.
- The divorce becomes irrevocable
after three months after termination
of the marriage by divorce.
- Jurisdiction over actions for divorce
is vested upon the Shari'a Circuit
Courts, whose decisions may be
 appealed to the Shari'a District impugn Zamoranos’ divorce to her
Courts. previous marriage.

- On June 18, 1992, the Decree of - Pacasum's administrative complaint

Divorce was issued by Judge Kaudri is wholly dependent on the
L. Jainul, who was the presiding continuing validity of the marriage
judge of the Shari 'a Circuit Court in between Zamoranos and De
Isabela, Basilan between Zamoranos Guzman.
and De Guzman. - Since Zamoranos and De Guzman’s
- It stated that both parties appeared divorce was valid, following the
during the hearing, both have been doctrine of conclusiveness of
converted to the faith of Islam prior judgment, the parties are already
to their Muslim wedding. bound by our previous ruling on that
- With this, the divorce is valid, having specific issue.
been issued for a cause recognized - As a result, Pacasum's complaint for
under the applicable law by a immorality based on Zamoranos'
competent court having jurisdiction. alleged bigamy has no leg to stand
- Since neither party interposed an on.
appeal, the divorce has attained
finality. - WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED.
- Given the foregoing, we agree with
the CA that the Decree of Divorce
cannot be the subject of a collateral
attack.
- It is evident that Pacasum's
persistence in pursuing the
administrative case against
Zamoranos on the sole ground of
bigamy is a collateral attack to the
Divorce Decree of Zamoranos and
De Guzman since it is premised on
the supposition that the latter's
marriage with De Guzman was still
subsisting when she contracted
marriage with Pacasum.
- The collateral unassailability of the
divorce is a necessary consequence
of its finality. The decree has
therefore becomes res judicata,
subject to no collateral attack.
- Thus, Pacasum’s petition for
administrative liability cannot