FACTS:

The petitioner, Roldan E. Mala, purchased a parcel of land in Maguindanao and secured a Transfer Certificate of Title in his name. However, Vivencio B. Villagracia claimed to have a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo covering the same parcel of land. Roldan initiated barangay conciliation proceedings but was unable to settle the dispute with Vivencio. Roldan then filed an action to recover the possession of the land with the Fifth Shari'a District Court. He alleged that he is a Filipino Muslim and the registered owner of the land, and prayed that Vivencio be ordered to vacate the property. The respondent court granted Roldan's motion to present evidence ex parte and eventually ruled in favor of Roldan, ordering Vivencio to vacate the property and pay damages. Vivencio sought relief from the judgment, arguing that the Shari'a District Court had no jurisdiction over the case because he is not a Muslim. The Shari'a District Court denied Vivencio's petition, stating that it had jurisdiction over the case and that Vivencio's rights were not prejudiced. Vivencio then filed a petition for certiorari with the higher court, alleging that the Shari'a District Court acted without jurisdiction and that all proceedings before it, including the decision, are void. The higher court issued a temporary restraining order and ordered Roldan to comment on Vivencio's petition.

The petitioner, Roldan, filed an action for recovery of possession with the Fifth Shari'a District Court. He argued that filing the action with the Shari'a District Court would result in a more speedy disposition of the case. In response to the respondent, Vivencio, who claimed that the Fifth Shari'a District Court had no jurisdiction to decide the action because he is a non-Muslim, Roldan argued that non-Muslims are not prohibited from participating in Shari'a court proceedings, especially when the court applies the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Roldan further asserted that the nature of the action involved the removal of a cloud of doubt on one's Certificate of Title, which falls under the jurisdiction of Shari'a District Courts. Roldan claimed that the proceedings before the Shari'a District Court were valid since Vivencio was properly served with summons and failed to file an answer, thus waiving his right to participate in the proceedings. The principal issue to be resolved is whether a Shari'a District Court has jurisdiction over a real action where one of the parties is not a Muslim.

The petitioner, Roldan, filed a petition for recovery of possession against the respondent, Vivencio, before the Fifth Shari'a District Court. Roldan claimed ownership and sought the return of a property allegedly taken by Vivencio. However, neither Roldan's petition nor Vivencio's petition for relief from judgment stated that Vivencio is a Muslim. When it became apparent that Vivencio is not a Muslim, the Shari'a District Court should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Under Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, if it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter based on the pleadings or evidence, the court shall dismiss the claim. Since not all the parties involved in the case were Muslims, the Shari'a District Court had no jurisdiction over Roldan's action. The application of the provisions of the Civil Code by the Shari'a District Court also does not validate the proceedings because Shari'a District Courts apply Muslim law when resolving real actions arising from customary contracts.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Fifth Shari'a District Court had jurisdiction over Roldan's action for recovery of possession.

2. Whether or not the application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines by the Fifth Shari'a District Court validates the proceedings before the court.

3. Whether or not Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. can still challenge the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

4. Whether or not the doctrine of estoppel by laches applies in this case.

5. Whether the respondent Fifth Shari'a District Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.

6. Whether the respondent Fifth Shari'a District Court has jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Vivencio.

7. Whether or not the decisions of the Shari'a District Court are appealable to the Court of Appeals in the absence of the Shari'a Appellate Court.

8. Whether or not the Fifth Shari'a District Court had jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession filed by Roldan E. Mala.

RULING:

1. The Fifth Shari'a District Court did not have jurisdiction over Roldan's action for recovery of possession because not all parties involved were Muslims. The concurrent jurisdiction of Shari'a District Courts over real actions is applicable only when both parties are Muslims. Since Vivencio, one of the parties, was not a Muslim, the action should have been filed before the regular courts.

2. Although the Fifth Shari'a District Court applied the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines in resolving the action, it does not validate the proceedings. Shari'a District Courts apply Muslim law when resolving real actions arising from customary contracts. In real actions not arising from such contracts, the laws of general application, including the Civil Code, should be applied.

3. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. cannot anymore challenge the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The court held that parties may be barred from assailing the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action if it took them an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to object to the court's jurisdiction. In this case, the surety company had become a party to the case since 1948 and invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance during trial. It was only in 1963, after the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, that the surety company challenged the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the surety company is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction.

4. The court clarified that the doctrine of estoppel by laches must be applied with great care and only in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, the exceptional circumstances similar to the Tijam case do not exist. Therefore, the general rule applies and Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. cannot invoke estoppel by laches to bar them from challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

5. The respondent Fifth Shari'a District Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, as Vivencio is not a Muslim. Therefore, all the proceedings before the Shari'a District Court, including the service of summons on Vivencio, are void.

6. The service of summons on Vivencio is necessary for the respondent Fifth Shari'a District Court to acquire jurisdiction over his person. Since Vivencio was not served with summons, the court does not have jurisdiction over his person.

7. In the absence of the Shari'a Appellate Court, the decisions of the Shari'a District Court are appealable to the Court of Appeals. The Court referred to the case of Tomawis v. Hon. Balindong, which held that decisions of the Shari'a District Court shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals until the Shari'a Appellate Court is organized. The Court also noted that Tomawis was not yet promulgated when the petition for certiorari was filed, but took cognizance of the petition in the exercise of its original jurisdiction over certiorari cases.

8. The Fifth Shari'a District Court did not have jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession filed by Roldan E. Mala because the parties involved were not both Muslims. The Court ruled that Shari'a District Courts have jurisdiction over a real action only when the parties involved are Muslims. Therefore, the proceedings and judgment rendered by the Fifth Shari'a District Court in the case are void.

PRINCIPLES:

• Shari'a District Courts have jurisdiction over real actions if both parties involved are Muslims.

• The application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines does not validate Shari'a District Court proceedings if the action does not arise from a customary contract.

• Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

• A court's lack of jurisdiction affects its authority to take cognizance and render judgment on the action.

• A party may be barred from assailing the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action if it took them an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to object to the court's jurisdiction.

• Objections to a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, because jurisdiction over the subject matter is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties.

• The doctrine of estoppel by laches must be applied with great care and only in extraordinary circumstances.

• Jurisdiction over the person is the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action.

• Jurisdiction over the person is required in actions in personam or actions based on a party's personal liability. In such actions, the parties must be properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard.

• Jurisdiction over the person is acquired either by voluntary appearance in court or valid service of summons on the defendant.

• Objections to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity or they are deemed waived.

• In actions in rem, jurisdiction over the res or the thing under litigation is necessary, but jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not. Summons may still be served on the defendant to satisfy due process requirements.

• The Shari'a Appellate Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari of decisions of the Shari'a District Courts.

• In the absence of the Shari'a Appellate Court, decisions of the Shari'a District Court are appealable to the Court of Appeals.

• Shari'a District Courts have jurisdiction over real actions only when the parties involved are Muslims.