Case Summary (G.R. No. 193902)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
- April 28, 1982: Zamoranos converts to Islam
- May 3, 1982: Islamic marriage to Jesus (Mohamad) de Guzman under PD 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws)
- July 30, 1982: Civil marriage to De Guzman before RTC, Quezon City
- December 18, 1983: Talaq divorce granted by Shari’a Circuit District Court, Basilan; decree confirmed June 18, 1992
- December 20, 1989: Islamic marriage to Samson R. Pacasum, Sr. in Lanao del Norte
- December 28, 1992: Civil ceremony before RTC, Iligan City
- 1998–1999: De facto separation and custody compromise, granting Zamoranos primary custody of three children
- March 31, 2003 – May 31, 2004: Civil petition for annulment/void marriage filed by Pacasum before RTC, Iligan City
- October 25, 2004 – February 22, 2006: Criminal complaint and Information for Bigamy under RPC Art. 349
- July 30, 2010: CA Decision dismissing certiorari petition and affirming RTC’s order
- June 1, 2011: Supreme Court Decision applying the 1987 Constitution
Factual Background
Zamoranos first married De Guzman in Islamic rites after her conversion. She underwent a civil ceremony for recognition but subsequently obtained a talaq divorce under PD 1083, duly confirmed by the Shari’a Circuit Court. She later contracted a second marriage with Pacasum under Islamic rites, followed by a civil solemnization. Their union produced three children but ended in hostile separation and custody disputes.
Procedural History – Civil Annulment and Void Marriage
Pacasum filed for annulment and later amended to seek a declaration of void marriage on grounds of bigamy. The RTC, Iligan City, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that both parties were Muslims and that PD 1083 governed their marriage and divorce exclusively under Shari’a courts. The CA and this Court affirmed, rendering the RTC’s dismissal final and executory on April 3, 2009.
Procedural History – Criminal Bigamy Prosecution
Pacasum filed a criminal complaint for bigamy. The local prosecutor initially dismissed it on reconsideration; the Secretary of Justice reversed and reinstated the charge. The RTC, Branch 6, Iligan City, denied Zamoranos’s motion to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. Zamoranos sought certiorari relief in the CA, which dismissed her petition for certiorari on grounds that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction occurred.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging the denial of the motion to quash the Information for bigamy.
- Whether the factual findings that Zamoranos is a Muslim whose first marriage and talaq divorce were valid under PD 1083 are correct.
Jurisdictional and Remedy Analysis
Under Rule 45, certiorari is narrowly confined to grave abuse of discretion or acts in excess of jurisdiction. Generally, interlocutory orders like denial of a motion to quash are not appealable; the proper remedy is to proceed to final judgment and then appeal. Exceptions permit certiorari when an order is patently erroneous or when appeal would not afford adequate relief, among others.
Res Judicata and Conclusiveness of Prior Ruling
The RTC’s dismissal of the void‐marriage petition was not a judgment on the merits but a jurisdictional ruling under PD 1083. While it did not bar Pacasum’s criminal complaint per se, it conclusively established Zamoranos’s status as a Muslim, the validity of her Islamic marriage to De Guzman, and the effectiveness of the talaq divorce.
Evidence of Muslim Status and Divorce
Zamoranos presented:
- An affidavit by the Ustadz who solemnized her marriage and witnessed the talaq procedure and its registration before the Shari’a court
- A certification by the presiding Shari’a judge confirming the divorce
- An affidavit by the former Shari’a court clerk attesting to the divorce’s confirmation and subsequent loss of records by fire
Conflict between PD 1083 and the Revised Penal Code
PD 1083 governs marriages and divorces where both parties are Muslims. Under Article 3 of PD 1083, Muslim Code provisions prevail over laws of general application; subsequent marriage rites under civil law are merely ceremonial wh
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 193902)
Parties and Consolidation
- Three petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, were consolidated: G.R. No. 193902 (Zamoranos v. People and Pacasum), G.R. No. 193908 (withdrawn by petitioner), and G.R. No. 194075 (Pacasum v. Zamoranos).
- Atty. Marietta D. Zamoranos filed petitions to annul the RTC-Branch 6 Order reinstating the bigamy Information against her.
- Samson R. Pacasum, Sr. likewise appealed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Zamoranos’ certiorari petition.
Factual Background
- Marietta D. Zamoranos converted from Roman Catholicism to Islam on April 28, 1982.
- On May 3, 1982, Ustadz Abdullah Ha-Ja-Utto solemnized her marriage to Jesus de Guzman under Islamic rites in Isabela, Basilan.
- On July 30, 1982, Zamoranos and De Guzman celebrated a civil marriage before RTC Quezon City, Judge Perfecto Laguio.
- On December 18, 1983, Zamoranos and De Guzman executed a divorce by talaq, later confirmed by the Shari’a Circuit District Court (3rd District, Isabela, Basilan) via Decree of Divorce dated June 18, 1992, under P.D. 1083.
- Zamoranos married Samson R. Pacasum, Sr. under Islamic rites on December 20, 1989, in Balo-i, Lanao del Norte, and renewed vows in civil rites on December 28, 1992, before RTC Iligan City, Judge Valerio Salazar.
- The union produced three children: Samson Jr., Sam Jean, and Sam Joon; the couple de facto separated in 1998 and entered a custody compromise on October 18, 1999.
Procedural History
- Pacasum filed Civil Case No. 6249 (RTC Iligan City Branch 2) on March 31, 2003, first for annulment, then amended (May 31, 2004) to seek declaration of void marriage on bigamy grounds.
- Pacasum filed a criminal complaint for bigamy (Art. 349, RPC) on October 25, 2004, and administrative cases against Zamoranos (later dismissed).
- Zamoranos faced an Information for Bigamy (Crim. Case No. 06-12305, RTC Iligan City Branch 6) filed on February 22, 2006, after the Secretary of Justice (Feb. 7, 2006) reversed earlier prosecutorial dismissals.
- RTC Branch 2 dismissed Civil Case No. 6249 for lack of civil-court jurisdiction