https://www.manilatimes.

net/2017/03/03/news/regions/sc-resolves-marawi-land-dispute/315255/

THE MUNICIPALITY OF TANGKAL, PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE,

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 be returned to them as
successors-in-interest of Macalabo.

The Municipality of Tangkal filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss 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.

In its Order dated March 9, 2010, the Shari'a District Court denied the Municipality of Tangkal's
motion to dismiss. It held that since the mayor of Tangkal, Abdulazis A.M. Batingolo, is a
Muslim, the case "is an action involving Muslims, hence, the court has original jurisdiction
concurrently with that of regular/civil courts." It added that venue was properly laid because the
Shari'a District Court has territorial jurisdiction over the provinces of Lanao del Sur and Lanao
del Norte, in addition to the cities of Marawi and Iligan. Moreover, the filing of a motion to
dismiss is a disallowed pleading under the Special Rules of Procedure in Shari'a Courts.

The Municipality of Tangkal moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Shari'a
District Court. The Shari'a District Court also ordered the Municipality of Tangkal to file its
answer within 10 days. The Municipality of Tangkal timely filed its answer and raised as an
affirmative defense the court's lack of jurisdiction.
Within the 60-day reglementary period, the Municipality of Tangkal elevated the case to us via
petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining order
(TRO). It reiterated its arguments in its earlier motion to dismiss and answer that the Shari'a
District Court has no jurisdiction since one party is a municipality which has no religious
affiliation.

Issue

Whether or not the Shari'a District Court of Marawi City has jurisdiction in an action for
recovery of possession filed by Muslim individuals against a municipality whose mayor is a
Muslim.

Held

The matters over which Shari'a district courts have Jurisdiction are enumerated in the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws, specifically in Article 143. Consistent with the purpose of the law to
provide for an effective administration and enforcement of Muslim personal laws among
Muslims, it has a catchall provision granting Shari'a district courts original jurisdiction over
personal and real actions except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. cralawred The
Shari'a district courts' jurisdiction over these matters is concurrent with regular civil courts, i.e.,
municipal trial courts and regional trial courts. 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.
The complaint below, which is a real action involving title to and possession of the land situated
at Barangay Banisilon, Tangkal, was filed by private respondents before the Shari'a District
Court pursuant to the general jurisdiction conferred by Article 143(2)(b). In determining whether
the Shari'a District Court has jurisdiction over the case, the threshold question is whether both
parties are Muslims. There is no disagreement that private respondents, as plaintiffs below, are
Muslims. The only dispute is whether the requirement is satisfied because the mayor of the
defendant municipality is also a Muslim.

When Article 143(2)(b) qualifies the conferment of jurisdiction to actions "wherein the parties
involved are Muslims," the word "parties" necessarily refers to the real parties in interest. Section
2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines real parties in interest as those who stand to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or are entitled to the avails of the suit. In this
case, the parties who will be directly benefited or injured are the private respondents, as real
party plaintiffs, and the Municipality of Tangkal, as the real party defendant. In their complaint,
private respondents claim that their predecessor-in-interest, Macalabo, entered into an agreement
with the Municipality of Tangkal for the use of the land. Their cause of action is based on the
Municipality of Tangkal's alleged failure and refusal to return the land or pay for its reasonable
value in accordance with the agreement. Accordingly, they pray for the return of the land or the
payment of reasonable rentals thereon. Thus, a judgment in favor of private respondents, either
allowing them to recover possession or entitling them to rentals, would undoubtedly be
beneficial to them; correlatively, it would be prejudicial to the Municipality of Tangkal which
would either be deprived possession of the land on which its municipal hall currently stands or
be required to allocate funds for payment of rent. Conversely, a judgment in favor of the
Municipality of Tangkal would effectively quiet its title over the land and defeat the claims of
private respondents.

It is clear from the title and the averments in the complaint that Mayor Batingolo was impleaded
only in a representative capacity, as chief executive of the local government of Tangkal. When
an action is defended by a representative, that representative is not-and neither does he become-a
real party in interest. The person represented is deemed the real party in interest; the
representative remains to be a third party to the action. That Mayor Batingolo is a Muslim is
therefore irrelevant for purposes of complying with the jurisdictional requirement under Article
143(2)(b) that both parties be Muslims. To satisfy the requirement, it is the real party defendant,
the Municipality of Tangkal, who must be a Muslim. Such a proposition, however, is a legal
impossibility.

The Code of Muslim Personal Laws defines a "Muslim" as "a person who testifies to the oneness
of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad and professes Islam."31 Although the definition
does not explicitly distinguish between natural and juridical persons, it nonetheless connotes the
exercise of religion, which is a fundamental personal right. The ability to testify to the "oneness
of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad" and to profess Islam is, by its nature, restricted to
natural persons. In contrast, juridical persons are artificial beings with "no consciences, no
beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires."33 They are considered persons only by virtue of
legal fiction. The Municipality of Tangkal falls under this category. Under the Local
Government Code, a municipality is a body politic and corporate that exercises powers as a
political subdivision of the national government and as a corporate entity representing the
inhabitants of its territory.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of the Shari'a District Court of
Marawi City in Civil Case No. 201-09 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Civil
Case No. 201-09 is DISMISSED.