G.R. No. 188829 - Republic vs. Harp

Hadji Abdula Malang, a Muslim engaged in farming and trading, is the decedent.
Petitioner Neng aKagui Kadiguiaa Malang, who married him in 1972 in Cotabato City, is one of several wives.
Multiple respondents include Hadji Abdula’s surviving children and other surviving spouses (Jubaida, Nayo, and Mabay), as well as children from his earlier unions.

Hadji Abdula contracted a total of eight marriages during the effectivity of the Civil Code and before the enactment of the Muslim Code.
His marriages include:

First marriage to Aida (Kenanday) Limba, with whom he had four children.
Subsequent marriages to Jubaida Kado, Nayo Omar, and Mabay (among others), with some marriages ending in divorce prior to the Muslim Code.
Marriage to petitioner Neng aKagui Kadiguiaa in 1972, during which no children were born.

Only one marriage could be legally valid at any given time under the Civil Code, which presupposes monogamy.

Land parcels in Sousa and Talumanis, Cotabato City.
Residential lots and buildings in Cotabato City.
Agricultural lands and business-related assets such as a pick-up jeepney.
Deposits maintained in various banks (United Coconut Planters Bank, Metrobank, Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, among others).

Some properties were titled in the name “married to Neng Malang,” which petitioner asserted indicated a conjugal partnership.

On January 21, 1994, petitioner filed a petition with the Sharia District Court in Cotabato City seeking the settlement of Hadji Abdula’s estate and appointment of letters of administration.
Oppositions were filed by Hadji Mohammad Ulyssis Malang (the eldest son) and later joined by other heirs, contesting both the petitioner’s claim and the suitability of her requested administration.
The court ordered the publication of the petition, set bond requirements, and subsequently issued letters of administration to Hadji Mohammad, Hadji Ismael, and petitioner as joint administrators.
Motions were filed by the petitioner to obtain bank statements and later to allow her an advance withdrawal from the estate on account of her ailing health.

Petitioner claimed that properties in Cotabato City, including real estates, the jeepney, and bank deposits, were conjugal properties under provisions of the Civil Code and Family Code.
Oppositors contended that:

Plural marriages void the possibility of a valid conjugal partnership.
Hadji Abdula adopted a complete separation of property regime, with his various wives not contributing equally to the acquisition of assets.
The titles reflecting “married to Neng Malang” were merely descriptive of the relationship and not proof of a conjugal partnership.

The Civil Code provisions on marriage and conjugal partnership of gains.
The Muslim Code (P.D. 1083), which mandates a complete separation of property in the absence of a contrary marriage settlement in plural marriages.
The Family Code, which governed co-ownership and property relations post-August 3, 1988.

Amici curiae, including Justice Ricardo C. Puno and former Congressman Michael O. Mastura, provided written memoranda informing the Court’s understanding of the issues, especially on the application of multiple legal rules.

Whether the regime of conjugal partnership of gains governs the property relationship between petitioner and Hadji Abdula, given that their marriage was celebrated before the effectivity of the Muslim Code.

The validity of multiple Muslim marriages under the Civil Code versus the Islamic law practices.
Whether plural marriages, by violating the Civil Code’s presumption of monogamy, preclude the formation of a conjugal partnership.
Determination of which properties acquired by the decedent qualify as conjugal (jointly acquired during a valid marriage) versus those that are his exclusive property.
Identification of the valid and legally existing marriage at the time of Hadji Abdula’s death, considering divorces and the multiplicity of marriages.
The implications on the succession and estate distribution among the surviving spouses and children, taking into account issues of legitimacy and timing of conception or birth.
How to harmonize the disparate provisions of the Civil Code, Muslim Code, and Family Code regarding marital property, co-ownership, and dissolution of property regimes.
Resolving evidentiary gaps regarding the exact dates of births, marriages, divorces, and periods of cohabitation necessary to establish property classification.