Case Digest: FOUZIY ALI BONDAGJY v. SABRINA ARTADI

FOUZIY ALI BONDAGJY v. SABRINA ARTADI

         Petitioner Fouziy Ali Bondagjy and respondent Sabrina Artadi were married according to Islamic Law. Unfortunately, the marital union turned sour after a few years. On the ground of neglect or failure to provide support for her and the family, the Artadi filed a complaint for divorce by faskh before the Third Sharia Circuit Court at Isabela, Basilan which was dismissed since the grounds by which she relied upon do not exist and that she does not reside in Zamboanga City. It was also counter argued he does not neglect his wife and children, these are but allegations without evidence to support such claims.

After almost two years, the Artadi filed for declaration of nullity of marriage, custody and support before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the parties since they were Muslims at the time of the marriage, hence, regular courts cannot acquire jurisdiction and on basis of res judicata because of the previous dismissal by Sharia Court. Subsequently, Artadi again filed for divorce by faskh before the Second Sharia Circuit Court at Marawi City for neglect and failure of the Bondagjy to provide support and to perform his martial obligations which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata and failure to comply with the rule on forum shopping. Artadi appealed to the Fourth Sharia Judicial District Court of Marawi City which ruled that res judicata does not apply in the case at bar since the Artadi offered new evidences to prove that she is indeed entitled to divorce, hence it remanded the case to the Second Sharia Circuit Court for hearing on the merits.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to the case

HELD:

For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; and (4) there must be, as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.

The test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action. If the same evidence would sustain both actions, they are considered the same and covered by the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action. It is with respect to the presence of the fourth requisite that the Court finds no such identity of causes of action. The causes of action are based on different periods during which Bondagjy allegedly neglected or failed to support his family and perform his marital obligations.