G.R. No. 186312 - Spouses Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, Inc.

Petitioner Fouziy Ali Bondagjy and respondent Sabrina Artadi were married under Islamic law on February 4, 1988 at the Manila Hotel.
Soon after marriage, marital discord emerged, setting the stage for subsequent legal actions based on issues of support and marital obligations.

In or about March 1996, respondent filed a petition for divorce by faskh before the Third Shari’a Circuit Court at Isabela, Basilan.
The divorce complaint was based on allegations that petitioner had neglected or failed to provide support since October 1994.
The Third Shari’a Circuit Court, after evaluating the pleadings (respondent’s petition, petitioner’s answer, and subsequent reply), dismissed the complaint on June 24, 1996.

The court ruled that the alleged grounds did not exist at the time and noted that respondent was not actually a resident of Zamboanga City.
It also noted that petitioner’s conduct—a decision to bring his wife to Saudi Arabia where she operated a business, and the birth of children there—demonstrated his adherence to his familial obligations according to Islamic law.

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the dismissal order became final and executory.

On March 20, 1998, respondent filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, custody, and support before the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which was dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and res judicata.
On February 7, 2005, respondent filed another petition for divorce by faskh before the Second Shari’a Circuit Court at Marawi City (Civil Case No. 2005-111) alleging again petitioner’s neglect and failure to perform marital obligations.
Petitioner raised affirmative defenses, particularly:

The Second Shari’a Circuit Court dismissed the 2005 petition on the grounds of res judicata and failure to comply with the rule on forum shopping.

Respondent appealed the dismissal to the Fourth Shari’a Judicial District Court at Marawi City.
The Fourth Shari’a Judicial District Court, in its October 17, 2005 Decision, ruled that:

Res judicata did not apply because respondent might have new evidence to support her claim for divorce by faskh.
The issues of forum shopping were brushed aside in favor of reopening the case for a proper hearing on its merits.

Consequently, the Fourth Shari’a Judicial District Court remanded the case to the Second Shari’a Circuit Court for further proceedings on the merits.

Petitioner failed to give support and companionship to his wife and children.
Although petitioner had shown care in other respects (such as taking his wife to Saudi Arabia to operate a business), the evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain a claim of neglect.

Prolonged and continuous neglect by petitioner over a later period, which was distinct and independent from the period covered in the 1996 petition.
Emotional and financial suffering due to petitioner’s failure to perform his marital obligations.

The court noted that the two petitions covered different periods and circumstances, affecting the determination of identity in the causes of action.

Whether the Fourth Shari’a Judicial District Court erred in reversing the Second Shari’a Circuit Court’s dismissal of the petition for divorce by faskh.

Was there an error in remanding the case given that the earlier judgment in SCC Case No. 541 was final?
Did the evidence (or lack thereof) in the respondent’s 2005 petition warrant reopening the case?

Whether res judicata applies to Civil Case No. 2005-111 based on the earlier decision in SCC Case No. 541.

Is there identity in the causes of action between the earlier petition and the present petition?
Can differences in the periods and factual circumstances support the claim that the causes of action are independent?

Whether the omission in respondent’s certification against forum shopping—specifically, failure to mention the prior annulment petition—should result in dismissal of the petition.

Is this omission fatal to the petitioner’s claim under the Rules of Court, particularly Section 5, Rule 7?