Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 179 views

    Villagracia Vs Sharia

    Uploaded by

    kamiruhyun
    Roldan filed an action in the Shari'a District Court to recover possession of a parcel of land from Vivencio. The Court ruled in favor of Roldan as the registered owner. Vivencio appealed, arguing the Court did not have jurisdiction as he is not Muslim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vivencio, finding that under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, Shari'a Courts only have jurisdiction over real actions where both parties are Muslim. As Vivencio stated he was not Muslim and Roldan did not dispute this, the Shari'a Court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Villagracia Vs Sharia

    Uploaded by

    kamiruhyun
    179 views1 page
    Roldan filed an action in the Shari'a District Court to recover possession of a parcel of land from Vivencio. The Court ruled in favor of Roldan as the registered owner. Vivencio appealed, arguing the Court did not have jurisdiction as he is not Muslim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vivencio, finding that under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, Shari'a Courts only have jurisdiction over real actions where both parties are Muslim. As Vivencio stated he was not Muslim and Roldan did not dispute this, the Shari'a Court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

    Original Description:

    PERSONS and FAMILY RELATIONS

    Original Title

    Villagracia vs Sharia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roldan filed an action in the Shari'a District Court to recover possession of a parcel of land from Vivencio. The Court ruled in favor of Roldan as the registered owner. Vivencio appealed, arguing the Court did not have jurisdiction as he is not Muslim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vivencio, finding that under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, Shari'a Courts only have jurisdiction over real actions where both parties are Muslim. As Vivencio stated he was not Muslim and Roldan did not dispute this, the Shari'a Court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    179 views1 page

    Villagracia Vs Sharia

    Uploaded by

    kamiruhyun
    Roldan filed an action in the Shari'a District Court to recover possession of a parcel of land from Vivencio. The Court ruled in favor of Roldan as the registered owner. Vivencio appealed, arguing the Court did not have jurisdiction as he is not Muslim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vivencio, finding that under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, Shari'a Courts only have jurisdiction over real actions where both parties are Muslim. As Vivencio stated he was not Muslim and Roldan did not dispute this, the Shari'a Court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VILLAGRACIA vs.

    SHARIA
    GR No 188832 April 23, 2014

    FACTS:
    Roldan E. Mala, who purchased a 300-square-meter parcel of land, initiated
    barangay conciliation proceedings to settle his conflicting claim with Vivencio, who
    occupied the parcel of land covered by the formers certificate of title. Failing to
    settle the conflict at the barangay level, Roldan filed an action to recover the
    possession of the parcel of land with respondent Fifth Sharia District Court. Roldan
    alleged that he is a Filipino Muslim and that he is the registered owner of the lot. He
    prayed that respondent Court order Vivencio to vacate his property. Respondent
    court caused service of summons on Vivencio but the latter failed to file his answer.
    Thus, Roldan moved that he be allowed to present evidence ex parte. The
    respondent Fifth Sharia District Court ruled that Roldan, as registered owner, had
    the better right to possess the parcel of land. Vivencio filed a petition for relief from
    judgment with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent
    Court ruled that Vivencio "intentionally [waived] his right to defend himself ; that it
    had jurisdiction over Roldans action for recovery of possession and that regardless
    of Vivencio being a non-Muslim, his rights were not prejudiced since respondent
    Fifth Sharia District Court decided the case applying the provisions of the Civil
    Code of the Philippines.
    On August 6, 2009, Vivencio filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for
    issuance of temporary restraining order with the Supreme Court. He stated that he
    is not a muslim and that Under Article 143, paragraph (2)(b) of the Code of Muslim
    Personal Laws of the Philippines, Sharia District Courts may only take cognizance
    of real actions where the parties involved are Muslims and therefore the
    respondent Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter

    ISSUE:
    Whether a Sharia District Court may validly hear, try, and decide a real
    action where one of the parties is a non-Muslim if the District Court decides the
    action applying the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    HELD:
    No, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Vivencio. The case
    involves an action for recovery of possession of real property. As a matter of law,
    Sharia District Courts may only take cognizance of a real action "wherein the
    parties involved are Muslims. In this case, the allegations in Roldans petition for
    recovery of possession did not state that Vivencio is a Muslim. When Vivencio
    stated in his petition for relief from judgment that he is not a Muslim, Roldan did not
    dispute this claim. When it became apparent that Vivencio is not a Muslim,
    respondent Fifth Sharia District Court should have motu proprio dismissed the
    case. Considering, that one of the parties involved in this case is not a Muslim,
    respondent Fifth Sharia District Court had no jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the
    action for recovery of possession of real property. The proceedings before it are
    void, regardless of the fact that it applied the provisions of the Civil Code of the
    Philippines in resolving the action.

    You might also like