Title
Supreme Court
Mendez vs. Shari'a District Court
Case
G.R. No. 201614
Decision Date
Jan 12, 2016
A Muslim couple's divorce and custody battle over their daughter, with courts initially granting custody to the father based on religious grounds, later overturned by the Supreme Court due to jurisdictional errors and lack of due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 201614)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Sheryl M. Mendez
Respondent: Dr. John O. Maliga; Rasad G. Balindong (Acting Presiding Judge, ShDC); Montano K. Kalimpo (Presiding Judge, ShCC)

Key Dates

• April 9, 2008 – Marriage under Muslim rites
• November 2, 2010 – Maliga’s petition for judicial confirmation of talaq and custody prayers filed in ShCC
• November 12 & December 3, 2010 – ShCC orders awarding temporary custody and visitation rights
• August 19, 2011 – ShCC order confirming talaq, awarding custody to Maliga, and ordering mut’a gift
• March 30, 2012 – ShDC decision affirming ShCC custody ruling
• November 12, 2012 – Supreme Court reinstates petition for review
• January 12, 2016 – Supreme Court decision promulgated

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, judicial decisions)
• Rules of Court, Rule 15, Section 4 (notice of hearing) and Rule 45 (certiorari)
• Presidential Decree No. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws), Articles 54, 78, 143, 155
• Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao Organic Law (for appellate procedure)

Facts of the Case

Sheryl Mendez, originally a Roman Catholic, embraced Islam only at marriage. After wedding, Dr. Maliga alleged she reverted to Christianity, took Princess Fatima to Manila without his consent, enrolled her in a Catholic school, and practiced Christian rites. He filed for judicial confirmation of talaq, citing irreconcilable religious differences and sought temporary and permanent custody of their daughter.

Procedural History

• ShCC granted Maliga’s urgent motion for temporary custody on November 12, 2010; partially modified on December 3, 2010 to allow maternal visitation.
• On August 19, 2011, ShCC confirmed talaq, awarded permanent custody to Maliga, allowed visitation to Mendez, and ordered Php 24,000 mut’a.
• Mendez appealed custody ruling to the ShDC, which on March 30, 2012 affirmed ShCC’s custody decision, finding Mendez disqualified as apostate.
• Mendez petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45, raising jurisdictional defects, lack of notice, and best-interest considerations.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the ShCC erred in acting on the urgent motion for temporary custody without notice.
  2. Whether the ShCC and ShDC had jurisdiction to decide custody.
  3. Whether custody was properly granted to Maliga under relevant Muslim-law and procedural standards.

Jurisdiction Over Divorce and Custody

Under P.D. 1083, ShCC has exclusive original jurisdiction over divorce matters, and ShDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over custody cases. Nevertheless, as an ancillary power under Article 54, a court deciding divorce may determine custody when it flows directly from the dissolution. The Supreme Court recognized that the ShCC possessed ancillary jurisdiction to address custody in the talaq proceeding, without nullifying the ShDC’s primary custody jurisdiction in standalone cases.

Violation of Due Process

Maliga’s urgent custody motion lacked any notice of hearing as required by Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court (suppletorily applicable). Mendez was not served summons or apprised of the hearings, depriving her of the opportunity to be heard. A motion without hearing notice is a “scrap of paper” and cannot support any judicial order.

Insufficient Factual and Legal Basis

Both the ShCC and ShDC failed to state th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.