Dear PAO,

Without my knowledge, my wife secretly contracted a loan from her close friends to cover up huge losses in our business. WHEN MY WIFE fiNALLY DISCLOSED it to me, I discovered that the interest rate was usurious. So, I PLAN TO fiLE AN ACTION IN COURT IN order to annul the contract for the loan and possibly recover the excess payments. Instead OF REGULAR COURTS, MAY I fiLE THIS action with the Sharia District Court considering that all parties involved are Muslims?

Ahmad

Dear Ahmad, Presidential Decree (PD) 1083, otherwise known as the “Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines,” is the law that primarily governs the persons and family relations of Muslim Filipinos. Aside from codifying personal laws, it also enforces the code with the establishment of Sharia courts to handle disputes.

Article 143 (2) of PD 1083 provides for the jurisdiction of Sharia District Courts (SDC). It provides:

“(2) Concurrently with existing civil courts, the Sharia District Court shall have original jurisdiction over:

“x x x

“(b) All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph 1 (d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Court.

Xxx”

From the foregoing, it is clear that personal actions by and between Muslim Filipinos, like the contract of loan you mentioned, except for forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, may be filed with the Sharia District Courts which exercise concurrent jurisdiction with civil courts. Thus, you may file your complaint with the Sharia District Court which has jurisdiction over the place of your residence.

This opinion finds support from the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Spouses Maliga v. Tingao, GR 211089, and Spouses Maliga Unte, GR 211135, penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, July 11, 2023, where the Court en banc held:

“As to actions not involving contracts, Art. 143 (2)(b) of PD 1083 provides that these may still be adjudicated by SDCs provided that the parties are Muslims. Thus, the SDC may exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the civil courts when the following conditions are met: (1) the complaint is a personal or real action, but not one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer; (2) the parties are Muslims; and (3) the action does not fall under Article 143 (1)(d) of PD 1083.

“In effect, Art. 143(2)(b) of PD 1083 acts as a catch-all provision that primarily hinges jurisdiction on the parties involved and does not limit the jurisdiction of SDCs to specific kinds of action. Thus, regardless of the subject matter of the action, the SDC may exercise jurisdiction so long as the parties are Muslims…

“Despite being courts of limited jurisdiction, SDCs are expected to have the same proficiencies as regular courts. In fact, Article 140 of PD 1083 provides that [n]o person shall be appointed Sharia District judge unless, in addition to the qualifications for judges of Courts of First Instances (now Regional Trial Courts] fixed in the Judiciary Law, he or she is a learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence….

“Thus, in addition to their specific expertise in Muslim law and customary law, the SDCs are equipped with the same capabilities as regular courts. By including a catchall provision on all personal and real actions, the law clearly intended the SDCs to be self-sufficient adjudicatory bodies able to effectively resolve any dispute between and among Muslims. This policy vested SDCs with exclusive original jurisdiction over all other personal and real actions involving Muslims.”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net