Case Digest (G.R. No. 82077)
Facts:
Midsapak Tampar, Maisalam Tampar, Heirs of Gampong Tampar, represented by Hadji Mustapha Gampong, and Heirs of Pagayawan Tampar, represented by Sumapi Tampar v. Esmael Usman, Mohamad Datumanong, Hadji Salik Nur, and the Register of Deeds for the City of Cotabato, G.R. No. 82077, August 16, 1991, Supreme Court En Banc, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners filed a complaint in the Sharia District Court, 5th Sharia District, Cotabato City for "Annulment of Sale in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale and Delivery of Certificates of Title and Damages," alleging ownership of a parcel in Kalanganan (now Bagua, Cotabato City) that descended from their ancestor and was covered by OCT No. T‑RP‑478(548) and later TCT No. (T‑893)217 issued in 1950. They alleged that an alleged Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale dated June 11, 1947 conveyed the property to respondent Esmael Usman for P1,000, who thereafter sold it to respondents Mohammad Datumanong and Hadji Salik Nur.
The petitioners denied entering into the 1947 agreement, asserted the signatures were forged, and claimed the transaction was void for lacking the Provincial Governor’s approval; respondents denied forgery and controverted the other claims. At pre‑trial the Sharia court required the parties to submit the statements ("shuhud") of at least two witnesses. Petitioners’ sole witness withdrew, and petitioners then challenged respondent Usman to take an oath ("yamin") under Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure in Sharia Courts, invoking the provision that, where a plaintiff has no evidence, the defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall be rendered for the defendant.
Respondent Usman opposed, arguing that plaintiffs, as the mudda'i, should first take an oath if they had no evidence; he insisted plaintiffs must present some basis per ordinary rules of evidence. The Sharia court overruled Usman’s opposition (resolution dated June 25, 1986), ordered the yamin, and after his motion for reconsideration was denied Usman swore on the Quran that he had bought the land and had not forged the signatures. Thereafter the Sharia court rendered judgment dismiss...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sharia District Court commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ complaint by virtue of the defendant’s taking of the yamin (oath)?
- Does Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure in Sharia Courts, which allows judgment for a defendant when the plaintiff has no evidence and the defendant takes an oath, comport with the constitutional right to du...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)