Tamano vs. Ortiz

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined exclusively by the allegations of the complaint, not by defenses raised in a motion to dismiss or motion for reconsideration; where the complaint alleges a marriage solemnized under the Civil Code, the Regional Trial Court retains jurisdiction, and the shari'a courts are not vested with exclusive jurisdiction even if the parties were also married under Muslim rites.

Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano married private respondent Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano in civil rites on 31 May 1958. Their marriage allegedly remained valid and subsisting until his death on 18 May 1994. On 2 June 1993, prior to his death, Tamano also married petitioner Estrellita J. Tamano in civil rites in Malabang, Lanao del Sur. Tamano and Zorayda were Muslims, raising the question of whether the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (PD No. 1083) and the jurisdiction of the shari'a courts govern disputes arising from these marriages.

On 31 May 1958, Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano married Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano in civil rites. Their marriage supposedly remained valid and subsisting until his death on 18 May 1994. On 2 June 1993, prior to his death, Tamano also married Estrellita J. Tamano in civil rites in Malabang, Lanao del Sur.

On 23 November 1994, Zorayda, joined by her son Adib A. Tamano, filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Tamano and Estrellita on the ground that it was bigamous. They alleged that Tamano and Estrellita misrepresented themselves as "divorced" and "single," respectively, thus making the entries in the marriage contract false and fraudulent. They further alleged that Tamano never divorced Zorayda and that Estrellita was not "single" when she married Tamano, as the decision annulling her previous marriage with Romeo C. Llave never became final and executory for non-compliance with publication requirements.

Estrellita filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the RTC of Quezon City lacked jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action. She argued that only a party to the marriage could file an action for annulment against the other spouse, hence only Tamano could have filed such an action. She likewise contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were both Muslims and married in Muslim rites, jurisdiction was vested in the shari'a courts pursuant to Article 155 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. The lower court denied the motion, ruling that the case was properly cognizable by the RTC since Estrellita and Tamano were married in accordance with the Civil Code and not exclusively under PD No. 1083. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Notably, Estrellita first mentioned that she and Tamano were also married under Muslim laws only in her motion for reconsideration, not in the original motion to dismiss.

• Standing to Sue: Petitioner argued that only a party to the marriage could file an action for annulment against the other spouse, and thus it was only Tamano who could have filed an action for annulment of their marriage.
• Shari'a Court Jurisdiction: Petitioner contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were both Muslims and married in Muslim rites, jurisdiction to hear and try the case was vested in the shari'a courts pursuant to Article 155 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
• Applicability of PD No. 1083: Petitioner argued that the shari'a courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 13, Title II, PD No. 1083, which governs marriages wherein both parties are Muslims or wherein only the male party is Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or the Code.

• Bigamous Marriage: Respondents alleged that the marriage of Tamano and Estrellita was bigamous, as Tamano never divorced Zorayda and their 1958 marriage remained valid and subsisting.
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Respondents contended that Tamano and Estrellita misrepresented themselves as "divorced" and "single," respectively, making the entries in the marriage contract false and fraudulent.
• Estrellita's Prior Marriage: Respondents argued that Estrellita was not "single" when she married Tamano, as the decision annulling her previous marriage with Romeo C. Llave never became final and executory for non-compliance with publication requirements.

• Jurisdiction — Determining Factor: Whether jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or by the defenses raised in the motion to dismiss or motion for reconsideration.
• Shari'a Court vs. RTC Jurisdiction: Whether the shari'a courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a declaration of nullity of marriage where the parties were allegedly married under both civil and Muslim rites.

• Jurisdiction — Determining Factor: Yes, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. A court's jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion for reconsideration.
• Shari'a Court vs. RTC Jurisdiction: No, the shari'a courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction. Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not provide for a situation where parties were married under both civil and Muslim rites, so the RTC retains its general original jurisdiction under Section 19, paragraph (6) of BP Blg. 129.

• Jurisdiction — Determining Factor: The nature of an action and the court with jurisdiction over it are determined by the allegations made by the plaintiff in the complaint, which comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action. In the complaint filed by private respondents, it was alleged that Estrellita and Tamano were married in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. Never was it mentioned that they were married under Muslim laws or PD No. 1083. Estrellita herself never stated in her motion to dismiss that she and Tamano were married under Muslim laws; that allegation first appeared only in her motion for reconsideration. Because jurisdiction is determined solely by the complaint's allegations, the RTC was not divested of jurisdiction despite the later claim of a Muslim-rites marriage.

• Shari'a Court vs. RTC Jurisdiction: Under Section 19, paragraph (6) of BP Blg. 129, Regional Trial Courts 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. Article 13 of PD No. 1083 applies to marriages and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or the Code. However, Article 13 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married under both civil and Muslim rites. Consequently, the shari'a courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction over such marriages, and the RTC is not divested of its general original jurisdiction. Assuming the parties were indeed also married under Muslim laws, the case would still fall under the general original jurisdiction of the RTC.

• Determination of Jurisdiction by the Complaint — Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the complaint, which comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action. A court's jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the complaint. Applied here: the complaint alleged a Civil Code marriage, so the RTC had jurisdiction regardless of Estrellita's later assertion of a Muslim-rites marriage in her motion for reconsideration.

• Residual General Original Jurisdiction of the RTC — Under Section 19, paragraph (6) of BP Blg. 129, Regional Trial Courts 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. Applied here: because Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not cover marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim rites, the shari'a courts lack exclusive jurisdiction, and the RTC's residual general original jurisdiction applies.

• "There should be no question by now that what determines the nature of an action and correspondingly the court which has jurisdiction over it are the allegations made by the plaintiff in this case." — This passage states the controlling rule that jurisdiction is determined by the complaint's allegations, the ratio decidendi for resolving the jurisdictional question.

• "a court's jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the complaint." — This passage reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is fixed by the plaintiff's pleading and cannot be altered by the defendant's assertions, directly addressing Estrellita's belated claim of a Muslim-rites marriage.

• "Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites. Consequently, the shari'a courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws." — This passage resolves the statutory gap in the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and establishes that the RTC retains jurisdiction over dual-rite marriages.

• Sandel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117250, 19 September 1996, 262 SCRA 109 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the nature of an action and the court with jurisdiction over it are determined by the allegations made by the plaintiff in the complaint, and that jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, motion to dismiss, or motion for reconsideration.

• Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120730, 28 October 1996, 263 SCRA 660 — Followed. Cited for the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the complaint as the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.

• Section 19, paragraph (6), BP Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — Provides that Regional Trial Courts 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. Applied as the statutory basis for the RTC's residual jurisdiction over the declaration of nullity of marriage, since the case did not fall within the shari'a courts' exclusive jurisdiction.

• Article 13, Title II, PD No. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines) — Governs the application of Muslim law to marriage and divorce where both parties are Muslims, or where only the male party is Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or the Code. The Court found this provision inapplicable to the case because the complaint alleged a Civil Code marriage, and the article does not address marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim rites.

• Article 155, Code of Muslim Personal Laws — Cited by petitioner as the basis for shari'a court jurisdiction. The Court implicitly rejected this argument by ruling that the RTC retained jurisdiction.

• Section 2, Rule 4, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that personal actions, such as a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage, may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff. Cited to support the venue of the action in Quezon City.

Davide, Jr., Vitug, Panganiban, and Quisumbing, JJ., concurred.