Case Digest (G.R. No. 82077)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 82077, petitioners Midsapak Tampar, Maisalam Tampar, heirs of Gampong Tampar represented by Hadji Mustapha Gampong, and heirs of Pagayawan Tampar represented by Sumapi Tampar filed before the Sharia District Court, Fifth Sharia District, Cotabato City, a complaint for “Annulment of Sale in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale and Delivery of Certificates of Title and Damages” against respondents Esmael Usman, Mohamad Datumanong, Hadji Salik Nur, and the Register of Deeds for the City of Cotabato. Petitioners claimed ownership of a parcel in Kalanganan (now Bagua, Cotabato City) inherited from their ancestor Tuan Kali Dimalen, who divided the estate between his two daughters, Remoreng Dimalen and Dominga Dimalen Tampar. The property was originally covered by OCT No. T-RP-478(548); after its loss, TCT No. (T-893)217 was issued on October 26, 1950 in the names of Remoreng Dimalen and the heirs of the deceased Dominga. Petitioners alleged that onCase Digest (G.R. No. 82077)
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- Petitioners: Midsapak Tampar, Maisalam Tampar, heirs of Gampong Tampar (represented by Hadji Mustapha Gampong), and heirs of Pagayawan Tampar (represented by Sumapi Tampar).
- Respondents: Esmael Usman, Mohamad Datumanong, Hadji Salik Nur, and the Register of Deeds for the City of Cotabato.
- Land Ownership and Title History
- Petitioners claim inheritance from ancestor Tuan Kali Dimalen, whose property was divided equally between daughters Remoreng Remoreng Dimalen and Dominga Dimalen Tampar.
- Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. T-RP-478(548)) was lost; in 1950, a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. (T-893)217) was issued in the names of Remoreng Dimalen and the heirs of Dominga Dimalen (deceased).
- Alleged Extrajudicial Settlement and Subsequent Sale
- On June 11, 1947, an “Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale” was allegedly executed between petitioners and Usman, conveying the land for ₱1,000.00.
- Usman later sold the same parcel to respondents Datumanong and Nur.
- Contentions and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners deny entering the 1947 agreement, allege forgery of signatures, and assert lack of required Provincial Governor’s approval.
- Respondents deny forgery and contest petitioners’ claims.
- Pre-trial issues:
- Whether Usman forged the extrajudicial settlement document.
- Whether Datumanong and Nur are purchasers in good faith for value.
- Petitioners’ sole witness withdrew; petitioners challenged Usman to take the Islamic oath (“yamin”) under Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure in Shari’a Courts. Usman refused, arguing petitioners, as plaintiffs, should take the oath first.
- The Sharia Court overruled Usman’s objection, ordered him to take the yamin, which he did. Subsequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure of proof.
Issues:
- Whether the Sharia Court committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the petitioners’ complaint based on the defendant’s yamin.
- Whether the invocation of the yamin under the Special Rules of Procedure in Shari’a Courts violates the petitioners’ constitutional right to due process.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)