Facts:

The case involves Rosemarie Salma Aragoncillo-Molok (petitioner) and Sity Aisa Barangai Molok (respondent). The respondent and Col. Agakhan M. Molok, both residents of Matina, Davao City, were married on June 29, 1992, in a ceremony officiated by Judge Virginia Hofllena-Europa at the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Ecoland, Matina, Davao City. Their marriage was duly registered at the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City on July 3, 1992. Col. Agakhan Molok, a member of the Philippine Army, passed away on November 20, 2003, in General Santos City. When the respondent sought to claim her late husband's death benefits from the Philippine Army, she discovered that another individual, Rosemarie Salma Aragoncillo-Molok, was also claiming to be his wife. The petitioner asserted her claim based on a Certificate of Marriage executed on May 20, 1999, in Taguig, Metro Manila, which was purportedly solemnized by Imam Ustadz Moha-imen Ulama under Muslim rites at the Manila Golden Mos...

Facts:

Background of the Marriages

• Respondent, Sity Aisa Barangai Molok, married Col. Agakhan M. Molok on June 29, 1992.
• The marriage was solemnized by Judge Virginia Hofllena-Europa at the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Ecoland, Matina, Davao City.
• The marriage was registered at the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City under Registry No. 1495 on July 3, 1992.
• Petitioner, Rosemarie Salma Aragoncillo-Molok, later claimed to have contracted a marriage with Col. Agakhan Molok.
• The purported marriage was executed on May 20, 1999 in Taguig, Metro Manila.
• It was allegedly solemnized under Muslim rites by Imam Ustadz Moha-imen Ulama at the Manila Golden Mosque and Cultural Center in Quiapo, Manila.
• The marriage was registered before the Shari’a District Court Muslim Civil Registrar of Zamboanga City under Registry No. 25901 on June 14, 2004.

Circumstances Leading to the Dispute

• Col. Agakhan M. Molok died on November 20, 2003 while serving as a member of the Philippine Army in General Santos City.
• Respondent, upon attempting to claim the death benefits of her late husband, discovered the existence of a second claimant (Petitioner) asserting a marital relationship with the deceased based on the Certificate of Marriage.

Filing of the Cancellation Petition

• Respondent initiated a verified petition on October 17, 2004 before the Third Shari’a District Court of Zamboanga City, seeking cancellation of the registration of the alleged second marriage.
• The petition asserted the second registration was meant to deceive the government by facilitating claims for the decedent’s benefits, especially since registration occurred seven months after his death.
• Relief prayed included cancellation of the second marriage registration, rectification of the registry records, and payment of costs and attorney’s fees by the petitioner.
• Evidence produced in support of respondent’s petition included:
• Documents showing there was no record of the second marriage from the Manila Golden Mosque and Cultural Center.
• An affidavit by Imam Ustadz Moha-imen Ulama stating that he never solemnized the supposed marriage.

Procedural Developments in the Trial Court

• On January 24, 2005, the trial court:
• Set the hearing of respondent’s petition for March 28, 2005.
• Ordered that all persons opposing the petition appear to show cause.
• Directed the publication of the order and posting of copies in conspicuous public places.
• Petitioner’s Efforts to Participate
• Petitioner sent a letter dated February 18, 2005, addressed to the Clerk of Court, expressing opposition to the grant of respondent’s petition.
• On March 16, 2005, petitioner filed a "Manifestation (With prayer for reconsideration of the January 24, 2005 Order)" requesting:
• That she be furnished with a copy of respondent’s petition and its annexes.

ii. That the order setting the hearing be reconsidered so as to allow her to file a responsive pleading.

Hearing and Decision at the Trial Court

• At the scheduled hearing on March 28, 2005, only respondent and her counsel appeared.
• Evidence of compliance with publication and posting requirements was duly presented.
• By its Decision on June 28, 2005, the trial court ruled in favor of respondent, declaring:
• The Muslim marriage between petitioner and the late Col. Agakhan M. Molok null, void, inexistent, and without legal effect.
• The order for cancellation of the registration in the Shari’a District Court was rendered effective.

Motion for Reconsideration and Further Developments

• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, and the trial court set a hearing for September 1, 2005.
• No hearing was conducted on the scheduled date due to a non-working Muslim holiday, and no notice for rescheduling was subsequently issued.
• Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was eventually denied by Order on July 25, 2005, without the court addressing the due process issues raised.

Escalation to the Supreme Court

• Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, contending that her constitutional right to due process was violated.
• The contention was primarily based on the failure to furnish her with a copy of respondent’s petition and its annexures, thus depriving her of the opportunity to file a responsive pleading.
• Respondent argued that petitioner was adequately notified and that her failure to file a formal opposition was unwarranted.

Issue:

Denial of Procedural Due Process

• Whether petitioner was given actual notice and a full opportunity to be heard by being furnished a copy of respondent’s petition and its annexes.
• Whether the trial court erred in ignoring petitioner’s manifestation requesting such copies and the opportunity to file a responsive pleading under Section 5, Rule 108.

Validity of the Cancellation of the Marriage Registration

• Whether, notwithstanding the discrepancies in the second marriage registration (e.g., registration after the decedent’s death and the questionable solemnization), the proceeding could lawfully exclude petitioner from participating.
• Whether the trial court’s reliance solely on respondent’s petition, without considering petitioner’s requests or allowing her participation, affected the merits of the decision.

Sufficiency and Timeliness of Notice and Hearing

• Whether the methods adopted (publication and posting) complied with due process requirements, especially given that petitioner was not provided a copy of the petition.
• Whether the failure to reset the hearing for petitioner’s motion for reconsideration further compounded the denial of her right to be heard.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)