VILLAGRACIA V SHARIA DISTRICT COURT  Shariah District Court is not a court exclusively for muslim litigants.

GR NO 188832
ISSUE: (1) WON Shari’a District Court may validly hear, try, and decide a real action where
This is a petition for certiorari with application for issuance of temporary restraining order and/or one of the parties is a non-Muslim if the District Court decides the action applying the
preliminary injunction to set aside the Fifth (5th) Shari'a District Court's decision provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
(2) WON Shari’a District Court may validly hear, try, and decide a real action filed
FACTS: by a Muslim against a no
 Mala purchased a 300sqm land in Maguindanao from Canete
 At the time of the purchase Villagracia occupied the parcel of land. HELD:

To settle his conflicting claim with Vivencio, Roldan initiated barangay conciliation proceedings. (1) NO
 Failing to settle with Vivencio at the barangay level, Roldan filed an action to recover
the possession of the parcel of land with respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court.  Since subject matter jurisdiction is a matter of law, parties cannot choose, consent to,
o Roldan alleged that he is a Filipino-Muslim and registered owner of the lot or agree as to what court or tribunal should decide their disputes; such decision
and has the better right to possess. rendered without jurisdiction shall be void
o He prayed for Vivencio to vacate the property and pay damages.
Under Article 143 of the Muslim Code, Shari’a District Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction
Shariah court took cognizance of the case and caused service of summons on Vivencio. with "existing civil courts" over real actions not arising from customary contracts wherein the
 despite service of summons, Vivencio failed to file his answer. parties involved are Muslims.
 Roldan moved that he be allowed to present evidence ex parte which was granted  When it became apparent that Vivencio is not a Muslim, respondent Fifth Shari’a District
o It ordered Vivencio to vacate the property turn over to Roldan and pay 10 000 Court should have motu proprio dismissed the case.
moderate damages and 5 000 attorney’s fees  Under Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, if it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action based on the pleadings or the evidence
Fifth Shari’a Distict Court issued the notice of writ of execution to Vivencio, giving him 30 days on record, the court shall dismiss the claim
from receipt of the notice to comply with the decision which he received on Dec 16 2008.
Respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court had no authority under the law to decide Roldan’s action
because not all of the parties involved in the action are Muslims.
January 13, 2009, Vivencio filed a petition for relief from judgment with prayer for issuance of writ  The Shaira court’s jurisdiction over real contracts are not arising from customary
of preliminary injunction contracts is concurrent with that of existing civil courts.
 Vivencio cited Article 155, paragraph (2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the  Its application of the Civil Code does not validate the proceedings
Philippines : argued that Shari’a District Courts may only hear civil actions and  If not arising from customary contracts Sharia courts apply the Civil code in which case
proceedings if both parties are Muslims. their Jurisdiction is concurrent with the Civil Courts
 Considering that he is a Christian, Vivencio argued that respondent Fifth Shari’a
District Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of Roldan’s action for recovery of A party may assail the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over a subject matter at any stage of the
possession of a parcel of land. proceedings, even on appeal.
 This is because jurisdiction over the subject matter is a "matter of law" and "may not be
conferred by consent or agreement of the parties.
Respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court ruled that Vivencio "intentionally [waived] his right to defend
himself.
 He was duly served with summons and had notice (2)
 Alleged that Vivencio cited the wrong provision of law. As what he cited refers to the
jurisdiction of Sharia CIRCUIT courts and not DISTRICT courts  A court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff once he or she files the
 Regardless, Vivencio waws not prejudiced as the court applied the provisions of the initiatory pleading.
Civil Code  As for the defendant, the court acquires jurisdiction over his or her person either by his
or her voluntary appearance in court or a valid service on him or her of summons
Upon receipt of order denying relief of judgment – Vivencio filed the petition for certiorari with
prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order with this court. In an action in personam which are directed to specific persons and seek personal judgments
 Argued that respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court acted without jurisdiction in rendering
the decision In this case, Roldan sought to enforce a personal obligation on Vivencio to vacate his property,
 Reiterating that he is not a Muslim the decision of the Sharia court is void restore to him the possession of his property.
 Therefore, service of summons is necessary to acquire jurisdiction
Ordering Roldan to comment, the court issued TRO  Sharia courts has no jurisdiction since Vivencio is not a Muslim summons are void

Roldan filed his comment alleging that he filed the petition before the Sharia court where a speedy However, the appeal should be applied with the Sharia appellate court but it was not yet organized.
disposition of cases can be obtained considering the voluminous cases of RTC Therefore, Sharia Circuit and District court should continue to discharge its duties
 that no provision in the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines prohibited non-
Muslims from participating in Shari’a court proceedings