Tamano vs.

Ortiz
G.R. No. 126603
June 29, 1998

PETITIONERS: Estrellita J. Tamano

RESPONDENTS: Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 89, Quezon City; Haja Putri Zorayda A.
Tamano; Adib A. Tamano; and the Hon. Court of Appeals
J. Bellosillo | G.R. No. 126603| Binding Effects of Special Law (Art. 18 of the NCC)
Patricia Costales (digest writer)

This is a petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
of 30 September 1996 in C.A. – G.R. S.P. Np. 39656 which affirmed the decision of the RTC-Br.89, Quezon
City, denying the motion to dismiss as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner. The case
lasted for 4 years.

SUMMARY: Tamano was married to Zorayda but before his death, wed petitioner Estrellita in civil rites.
Zorayda and her son filed for a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Tamano and Estrellita.
However, Estrellita filed a motion for dismissal alleging that the issue of nullity shall be handled not by RTC but
the Sharia Courts. SC held that the RTC are not divested of their general original jurisdiction.

MAIN DOCTRINE: In cases governed by special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of
the Civil code. The Sharia courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to
marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws. Consequently, the Regional Trial Courts are not
divested of their general original jurisdiction

FACTS
 On 31 May 1958, Sen. Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano married private respondent Zorayda in civil rites. They
were married until his death on 18 May 1994.
 Prior to his death, on 2 June 1993, Tamano married petitioner Estrellita in civil rites.
 On 23 November 1994, Private respondents filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of
Tamano and Estrellita on the grounds of bigamy and misrepresentation of “divorced” and “single”, thus
making their contract fraudulent.
 Petitioner filed for the dismissal of case alleging that only a party to the marriage could file an annulment and
also that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
 RTC denied her motion ruling that petitioner and Tamano were married under Civil Code and not exclusively
in accordance with P.D. No. 1083 or the Code of the Muslim Personal Laws.
 The Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by CA.

ISSUE

WON Sharia courts have jurisdiction over the case and not RTC?

HELD

No. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction overall actions
involving the contract of marriage and marital relations. The Court of Appeals ruled that the instant case would
fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Sharia courts only when filed in places where there are Sharia courts. But
in places where there are no Sharia courts, like Quezon City, the instant case could properly be filed before the
RTC. Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines provides that in cases of a marriage between a Muslim
and Non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this code, the Civil Code of the Philippines
shall apply.

1|Block 4
Assuming that they were married under Muslim laws, the same would still fall under the general original
jurisdiction of the RTC. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases not within
the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions as
provided by Sec. 19 par (6) of B.P.Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). SC denied the instant
petition and affirmed the decision of RTC and CA denying the motion to dismiss and reconsideration.

NOTE

Art. 18 of the NCC – In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their
deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code.

Shari’a – “Muslim Law”

- refers to all the ordinances and regulations governing Muslims as found principally in the Qur'an
and the Hadith.

2|Block 4