Deciding a non-issue - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

Where both parties are Muslims or where only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with the Muslim Law, the marriage shall be governed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, PD 1083. This Presidential Decree was promulgated as a state policy recognizing the customs, traditions, beliefs and interests of national cultural minorities. And under this Presidential Decree, a husband may contract a subsequent marriage but he must secure the consent of the wife or wives by filing a written notice thereof with the Clerk of the Shari'ah Court. If he fails to do this, the wife may ask for divorce. This is what happened to Amisola and Hiram.

Amisola and Hiram were married in Jolo, Sulu on May 1, 1978 in accordance with the Islamic Law. In the course of their marriage, the couple acquired properties consisting of (a) half unit of a duplex standing on a lot at Zamboanga City; (b) a 550 square meters lot adjacent to the duplex and (c) a house and lot at Kasanyangan Village, Jolo (collectively denominated as the PROPERTIES).

Hiram, however, contracted a subsequent marriage without securing Amisola's consent. So Amisola filed before the Shari'ah Circuit Court a complaint against Hiram for "Divorce with Prayer for Support and Damages".

At the pre-trial of the case, Hiram and Amisola "agreed" on the divorce and on the properties above listed as the properties subject of partition after the divorce. So the court in the pre-trial order, limited the issue to be resolved in the case, in this wise: "what are the rights or the respective shares of the herein parties with respect to the PROPERTIES after the divorce".

So after the trial, the Shari'ah judge issued an order dissolving the marriage of Amisola and Hiram, distributing the PROPERTIES equally between them as co-owners and ordering Hiram to pay the amount of P10,000 as support during the three month idda (waiting period before Amisola herself can remarry).

Amisola filed a notice of appeal to the Shari'ah District Court from this decision of the Shari'ah Circuit Court but only as far as it involves the issue of partition of the PROPERTIES and not to the grant of divorce and support, they being in her favor. Actually both parties, particularly Amisola, were concerned only with the conclusion of the Circuit Court that the properties were conjugal.

But the District Court on appeal modified the decision of the Circuit Court by (1) including another property in Alicia Zamboanga to be divided equally between the parties; (2) increasing the support to be given to Amisola to P110,000 a month; and (3) by granting P50,000 moral damages to her plus legal interest thereon. Was the District Court correct?

No. Based on the pre-trial order, the only issue to be resolved is the right of the parties to the PROPERTIES which they agreed and listed. And the Circuit Court precisely resolved this issue by distributing them equally between the parties and by granting Amisola three month support of P10,000 a month.

Amisola only questioned the distribution of the PROPERTIES; she saw no need to question the grant of divorce and support, they being in her favor. Consequently, the District Court acting as an appellate court was not bound to go beyond what Amisola was asking for. The basic procedural rule is that only errors claimed and assigned by a party will be considered by the Appellate Court except errors affecting its jurisdiction over the subject matter or errors affecting the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein.

In this case, there is no irregularity or legal infirmity in the circuit court's order. Indeed Amisola was only questioning the distribution of the properties. So when the District Court decreed the equal division of another lot not listed among the properties, increased the support eleven fold and granted P50,000 moral damages, not only did it defeat the intent and content of the pre-trial order but it also went beyond the sphere of its authority as delineated in Amisola's notice of appeal. These modifications certainly had no bearing in its jurisdiction; neither do they constitute clerical errors (Abubakar vs. Abubakar G.R. No. 134622 Oct. 22, 1999).

Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: [email protected]