8/19/2019 Mendez vs. SC

1/3

Material Facts:

Before the Supreme Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision

of the Shari' a District Court (ShDC), Cotabato City which armed the rder of 

Shari'a Circuit Court (ShCC), Cotabato City con!rming the tala" (divorce) between

petitioner Sheryl #$ #ende% (#ende%) and private respondent Dr$ &ohn $ #aliga andfurther awarding the custody of their minor child to the latter and !nally ordering

him to give a mut'a (consolatory gift) to #ende%$

n pril , *+, #ende% and #aliga were married under #uslim rites$ rior to their

marriage, the couple was already blessed with a daughter, rincess -atima #$

#aliga$ .heir marriage, however, soured shortly after their wedding$ .wo years

thereafter, #aliga !led with the ShCC a petition for the /udicial con!rmation of tala"

from #ende%, with a prayer for the grant of probational custody of their minor child

pending the resolution of the case$ ccording to #aliga, #ende% was a 0oman

Catholic and she only embraced the 1slamic faith on the date of their marriage and

the sincerity of his wife's submission to 1slam is dubitable, having noticed nochanges in her moral attitude and social lifestyle despite his guidance$ 2e alleged

that sometime in December *+, #ende% reverted to Christianity and went to

#anila a few days after their wedding and brought rincess -atima with her without

his 3nowledge and consent and taught the latter Christianity by enrolling her in a

Catholic school$ Before #ende% could !le her answer, #aliga !led his urgent motion

reiterating his plea to be awarded temporary custody of rincess -atima in

consideration of such factors as moral values, social upliftment, behavioral growth,

and religious consideration$ n 4ovember 5+, *5, #ende% !led her nswer

alleging that she followed the religion of her #uslim grandfather, and denied

#aliga's allegations that she was not sincere in her practice of 1slam$ She averred

that she became pregnant before she married #aliga and had been raising their

daughter on her own since her birth and that #aliga had been totally remiss in his

material and moral obligations to support her and their child$ She opposed his

prayer for custody, arguing that she had been raising rincess -atima since she was

born and that the custody of children below seven years old should belong to the

mother$ Subse"uently, #ende% !led her opposition to #aliga's urgent motion for

issuance of temporary custody arguing that the motion did not contain the re"uisite

notice of hearing and was, therefore, a mere scrap of paper$ She further contended

that she never received the summons in connection with the urgent motion and,

furthermore, she never received a copy of the rder granting temporary custody to

#aliga, which she had only pic3ed up from the court herself$ n December 6, *5,the ShCC partially reconsidered its initial order awarding temporary custody to

#aliga by granting the right of visitation to #ende% and subse"uently con!rmed the

tala" between the parties and awarded to #aliga the care and custody of rincess

-atima$ 7pon appeal by #ende% of the ShCC Decision with respect to custody, the

ShDC sustained the assailed decision$

Issue (s):

1. 8hether or not the ShCC and the ShDC had /urisdiction to rule on the issue of 

custody9 and

2. 8hether or not the ShCC erred in acting on #aliga's urgent motion for issuance

of temporary custody9

3. 8hether or not custody was properly granted to #aliga$

Ruling:

8/19/2019 Mendez vs. SC

2/3

 .he Court in resolving the issues presented before it appointed Secretary:C;

#ehol 6

of $D$ 4o$ 5+6, would be antithetical to the doctrine of ancillary /urisdiction$

2ence, in view of the foregoing doctrine, the ShCC, in cases involving divorce,

possesses the power to resolve the issue of custody, it being a related issue to the

main cause of action$ s regards the ShDC /urisdiction over "uestions of custody ,a

distinction must be made between a case for divorce wherein the issue of custody is

an ancillary issue and a case where custody is the main issue$ &urisdiction in the

former lies with the ShCC, as the main cause of action is divorce$ .he latter on the

other hand, where the main cause of action is one of custody, the same must be

!led with the ShDC, pursuant to rticle 5>6 of $D$ 4o$ 5+6$

2.

 .he Court, nonetheless, agrees with #ende% that the urgent motion lac3ed the

re"uisite notice of hearing$ 1t is immediately evident from the face of the motion

that it did not contain the notice of hearing re"uired by the 0ules of Court which has

suppletory application to the present case$ Section > of 0ule 5? provides that every

written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant$ ;very written motion is

re"uired to be heard and the notice of hearing shall be served in such manner as to

insure its receipt by the other party at least three (6) days before the date of 

hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice$ .he

notice of hearing is intended to prevent surprise and to a@ord the adverse party a

chance to be heard before the motion is resolved by the court$ seasonable serviceof a copy of the motion on the adverse party with a notice of hearing indicating the

time and place of hearing is a mandatory re"uirement that cannot be dispensed

with as this is the minimum re"uirement of procedural due process$ .herefore, a

motion that does not contain a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper and

presents no "uestion which merits the attention and consideration of the court$ 1t is

8/19/2019 Mendez vs. SC

3/3

not even a motion for it does not comply with the rules, and, hence, even the cler3

has no right to receive it$

3.

 .he orders of the ShCC and the ShDC awarding custody of rincess -atima to #aliga

were without evidentiary basis because no hearing was actually conducted prior to

the issuance of the order granting the urgent motion$ #oreover, there was no

e=planation given as to why the motion was resolved without notice to, or the

participation of, #ende%$ lthough the ShCC stated that, in deciding on the custody

case, it scrutini%ed the evidence on hand, it was remiss in its duty to state the

precise factual and legal basis on which its ruling awarding custody to #aliga was

based$ Section 5>, rticle A111 of the 5+ Constitution mandates that decisions

must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which they are based$ .he

decisions of courts must be able to address the issues raised by the parties through

the presentation of a comprehensive analysis or account of factual and legal

!ndings of the court$ 1t is evident that the ShCC failed to comply with thesere"uirements$ 1t merely stated that it was in rincess -atima's best interest in all

aspects of life, economically, socially and religiously that custody be awarded to

her father$ .here was no e=press !nding that #ende% was un!t in any way, or a hint

of an e=planation as to why #aliga was in a better position to ta3e custody of 

rincess -atima$ .he ShDC, on the other hand, in arming the !ndings of the ShCC,

stated that #ende% was disentitled to custody because she had turned apostate,

and held that she would remain dis"uali!ed until she return to the 1slamic faith in

accordance with the #uslim aw$ 1t appears, however, that dis"uali!cation due to

apostasy under the #uslim Code pertains to disinheritance under rticle 6 of the

#uslim Code, and not to the custody of children$ 4evertheless, the award of custody

is violative of the constitutional right of #ende% to due process$

 .o sum up the Decisions with respect to each issue presented, the Court declared

null and void the Decisions rendered by ShCC on robational Custody and

ermanent Custody of rincess -atima and li3ewise the rder of ShDC arming the

ShCC Decision insofar as the ruling on Custody is concerned$ n the other hand, the

rder of the ShCC con!rming the ronouncement of .ala" by Dr$ &ohn $ #aliga

against Sheryl #$ #ende% is maintained$