Shari'a Case Digest - Sheryl MEndez vs Sharia District Court (GR No. 201614)

8/19/2019 Shari'a Case Digest - Sheryl MEndez vs Sharia District Court (GR No. 201614)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sharia-case-digest-sheryl-mendez-vs-sharia-district-court-gr-no-201614 1/5

Sheryl M. Mendez vs. Shari’ District Court

GR. NO. 20161

!"C#S$

Sheryl M. Mendez and Dr. John O. Maliga were married under Muslim

rites, but they already have a daughter before their marriage. Shortly after

their marriage, their relationship became sour, and two years after, Maliga

led with the Sharia ircuit ourt a petition for !udicial conrmation of tala"

from Mendez, with a grant of probational custody of their minor child.

#ccording to Maliga, Mendez was a $oman atholic and only embrace the

%slamic faith on the date of their marriage and that her sincerity to %slam isdubitable. &e also alleged that Mendez reverted to hristianity when she

went to Manila and brought their daughter with her without his 'nowledge

and consent and she enrolled their daughter in a atholic School. Mendez

denied the allegations and that she followed the religion of her Muslim

grandfather, she also averred that she became pregnant before she married

and had been raising their daughter on her own and that Maliga had been

totally remiss in his material and moral obligations to support their child, and

argued that she was the one who raised the child from birth and that the

custody of children below seven years old should belong to the mother. She

further contends that she never received the summons in connection with

the urgent motion and never received a copy of the order granting

temporary custody to Maliga, which she had only pic'ed up from the court

herself. (he Sh partially reconsidered its initial order awarding temporary

custody to Maliga by granting the right of visitation to Mendez and

subse"uently conrmed the tala" between the parties and awarded to

Maliga the care and custody of )rincess *atima. +pon appeal by Mendez of

the Sh Decision with respect to custody, the ShD sustained the assailed

decision.

%ssue&s'$sh

1. hether or not the Sh erred in acting on Maliga-s urgent motion

for issuance of temporary custody



2. hether or not the Sh and the ShD had !urisdiction on the issue

of custody and(. hether or not custody was properly granted.

)*+D$

1.

#ccording to the ourt, it is clear that the Sh has e/clusive original

!urisdiction over civil actions between parties who have been married in

accordance with the Muslim law, involving disputes relating to divorce under

).D. 0o. 1234. (here is, therefore, no doubt that the Sh had !urisdiction to

conrm the tala" between Mendez and Maliga. #rticle 154 of the same ).D.,

however, clearly provides that the ShD has e/clusive original !urisdiction

over all cases involving custody under ).D. 0o. 1234. 6ut, notwithstanding

with the foregoing, as opined by Secretary Sadain, the Sh does seem to

have ancillary !urisdiction over custody issues as they relate to a divorce

decree. 0evertheless, it cannot be denied that the issue of custody is a

necessary conse"uence of a divorce proceeding. (his ourt, therefore,

believes that to rule the Sh is without !urisdiction to resolve issues on

custody after it had decided on the issue of divorce, simply because it

appears to contravening to ).D. 0o. 1234, would be antithetical to the

doctrine of ancillary !urisdiction. &ence, in view of the foregoing doctrine, the

Sh, in cases involving divorce, possesses the power to resolve the issue of custody, it being a related issue to the main cause of action.

2.

(he ourt, nonetheless, agrees with Mendez that the urgent motion

lac'ed the re"uisite notice of hearing. %t is immediately evident from the face

of the motion that it did not contain the notice of hearing re"uired by the

$ules of ourt which has suppletory application to the present case. +nder

the law, it provides that every written motion shall be set for hearing by the

applicant. 7very 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 849 days before the date of hearing, unless the court for

good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. # seasonable service of 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. %t is not even a motion for it does not comply with

the rules, and, hence, even the cler' has no right to receive it.

(.

(he orders of the Sh and the ShD awarding custody of )rincess

*atima to Maliga were without evidentiary basis because no hearing was

actually conducted prior to the issuance of the order granting the urgent

motion. Moreover, there was no e/planation given as to why the motion was

resolved without notice to, or the participation of Mendez. #lthough the Sh

stated that, in deciding on the custody case, it scrutinized 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 Maliga was based. Section 15, #rticle :%%%

of the 1;3< onstitution mandates that decisions must clearly and distinctlystate 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. %t is evident that the Sh failed to comply with these

re"uirements. %t 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, and no e/press nding that Mendez was unt in any

way, or a hint of an e/planation as to why Maliga was in a better position to

ta'e custody of )rincess *atima. (he ShD, on the other hand, in a?rmingthe ndings of the Sh, stated that Mendez was disentitled to custody

because she had turned apostate, and held that she would remain

dis"ualied until she return to the %slamic faith in accordance with the

Muslim @aw. %t appears, however, that dis"ualication due to apostasy under

the Muslim ode pertains to disinheritance under #rticle ;4 of the Muslim

ode, and not to the custody of children. 0evertheless, the award of custody

is violative of the constitutional right of Mendez to due process.

(he Decisions, with respect to each issue presented, the ourt declared null

and void the Decisions rendered by Sh on )robational ustody and

)ermanent ustody of )rincess *atima and li'ewise the Order of ShD

a?rming the Sh Decision insofar as the ruling on ustody is concerned.



On the other hand, the Order of the Sh conrming the )ronouncement of

(ala" by Dr. John O. Maliga against Sheryl M. Mendez is maintained.



#S7 D%A7S( O0 (&7 #S7 O*

S&7$B@ M. M70D7C :S S&#$%-#

D%S($%( O+$( 8A$. 0O. 21E159

Submitted toF

)rof. 0asrodin #li

Submitted byF*iel, Medori 7den A.

Shari'a Case Digest - Sheryl MEndez vs Sharia District Court (GR No. 201614)

Documents

Transcript of Shari'a Case Digest - Sheryl MEndez vs Sharia District Court (GR No. 201614)