G.R. No. 188832 - Villagracia vs. 5th Shari'a District Court

On February 15, 1996, Roldan E. Mala purchased a 300‐square–meter parcel of land in Poblacion, Parang, Maguindanao from Ceres CaAete, and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-15633) was issued in his name on March 3, 1996.
At the time of the purchase, Vivencio B. Villagracia occupied the parcel. By 2002, Vivencio procured a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo (Blg. P-60192) allegedly covering the same land.

In October 2006, after having the land surveyed by Geodetic Engineer Dennis P. Dacup, the survey report indicated that Vivencio was in possession of the land covered by Roldan’s certificate of title.
To settle the conflicting claims, Roldan first initiated barangay conciliation proceedings, and upon failure to settle, he filed an action for recovery of possession before the Fifth Shariaa District Court.
Roldan alleged that as the registered owner and a Filipino Muslim, he was deprived of his right to use and enjoy his property because Vivencio, a non-Muslim, occupied it.

The Fifth Shariaa District Court took cognizance of the case, served summons on Vivencio, and granted Roldan’s motion to present evidence ex parte when Vivencio failed to answer the summons.
On June 11, 2008, the court ruled in favor of Roldan by declaring that he had the better right to possession, ordering Vivencio to vacate the property and awarding damages and attorney’s fees.
A writ of execution was issued on December 15, 2008, and despite Vivencio’s filing of a petition for relief from judgment on January 13, 2009—asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction since he was a Christian—the Shariaa District Court denied his petition on the ground that he had waived his right by not participating in the proceedings.

On August 6, 2009, Vivencio filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Fifth Shariaa District Court lacked jurisdiction over a real action involving a non-Muslim party, in violation of Article 143, paragraph (2)(b) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
Roldan, in his comment, maintained that the Shariaa District Court had jurisdiction because the action was filed in its forum for speedy disposition and that non-Muslim participation did not invalidate proceedings where the Civil Code was applied.
Subsequent submissions and manifestations by both parties later brought to the fore the issue of whether the service of summons or the waiver of rights could cure the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Whether a Shariaa District Court has jurisdiction over a real action for recovery of possession when one of the parties involved is a non-Muslim.
Whether the service of summons on a non-Muslim defendant, and his subsequent waiver by failing to answer, confers jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Whether the application of the Civil Code by the Shariaa District Court in a real action involving non-Muslim parties validates its proceedings.
The proper forum for invoking certiorari given the current organizational status of the Shariaa Appellate Court under Republic Act No. 9054.