FACTS:

The petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents before the Shari'a District Court, claiming ownership over a parcel of land and seeking the annulment of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale executed between the parties. The petitioners alleged that their signatures in the document were forged and that the transaction was null and void. The parties were unable to reach a settlement during the pre-trial conference. The Court directed the parties to submit witness statements to prove their claims. The sole witness of the petitioners withdrew, leaving them with no witnesses. The petitioners then challenged respondent Usman to take an oath ("yamin") declaring that there is no truth to the claim of forgery. Respondent Usman opposed the challenge, arguing that the petitioners should first take the oath since they have no witnesses. The Court overruled the opposition and directed respondent Usman to take the oath, which he eventually complied with. After the oath was taken, judgment was rendered in favor of the respondents and the complaint was dismissed. The petitioners appealed, arguing that the use of the "yamin" deprived them of their constitutional right to be heard. The Court dismissed the petition but expressed concern over the use of the "yamin" in Shari'a court proceedings, stating that it deprives a litigant of due process and constitutional rights. The Court suggested a review of the Special Rules of Procedure in Shari'a courts to amend or delete the provision allowing the use of the "yamin." The petition was dismissed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Shari'a court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint of petitioners by virtue of the "yamin" taken by the defendant.

2. Whether or not the provision in the Special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Shari'a courts, which allows judgment to be rendered based on the taking of an oath, is constitutional and in accordance with due process.

RULING:

1. The dismissal of the complaint by the Shari'a court is upheld, but not because of the "yamin" taken by the respondent Usman. The dismissal is based on the fact that petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to support their complaint.

2. The provision in the Special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Shari'a courts, which allows judgment to be rendered based on the taking of an oath, effectively deprives a litigant of his constitutional right to due process. It denies a party his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Court suggests the possible deletion of this provision from the special rules and the constitution of a committee to review and make appropriate amendments to the rules.

PRINCIPLES:

• Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations.

• Judgment cannot be rendered solely based on the taking of an oath.

• The right to due process includes the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.