Estrellita J. Tamano, petitioner, versus Honorable Rodolfo A. Ortiz, Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 89, Quezon City, Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano, Adib A. Tamano and the Honorable Court of Appeals, respondents.
G.R. No. 126603 June 29, 1998
Facts:
On 31 May 1958 Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Tamano) married private respondent Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) in civil rites. Their marriage supposedly remained valid and subsisting until is death on 18 May 1994. Prior to his death, on 2 June 1993, Tamano also married petitioner Estrellita J. Tamano (Estrellita) in civil rites in Malabang, Lanao del Sur.
On 23 November 1994 private respondent joined by her son Adib A. Tamano (Adib) filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Tamano and Estrellita on the ground that it was bigamous. They contended that Tamano and Estrellita mispresented themselves as divorced and single, respectively, thus making the entries in the marriage contract false and fraudulent.
Private respondents 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 executor for non-compliance with publication requirements.
Petitioner alleged that “only a party to the marriage” could file an action for annulment of marriage against the other spouse, hence, it was only Tamano who could file an action for annulment of their marriage. She likewise contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were both Muslims and married in Muslim rites the jurisdiction to hear and try the instant case was vested in the shari’a courts pursuant to Article 155 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage of Tamano to Estrellita is a bigamous marriage.
Held:
In the complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by respondents herein it was alleged that Estrellita and Tamano were married in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. Never was it mentioned that Estrellita and Tamano were married under Muslim laws or P.D. No. 1083. Interestingly, Estrellita never stated in her Motion to Dismiss that she and Tamano were married under Muslim laws. That she in fact married to Tamano under Muslim laws was first mentioned only in her Motion for Reconsideration.
As alleged in the complaint, petitioner and Tamano were married in accordance with the Civil Code. Hence, contrary to the position of the petitioner, the Civil Code is applicable in the instant case. Assuming that indeed petitioner and Tamano were likewise married under Muslim laws, the same would still fall under the general original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
The shari’a courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws.
Therefore, the marriage of Estrellita and Tamano is a bigamous marriage being that it was celebrated while the prior subsisting marriage of Tamano to Zorayda is still valid.
