FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126603. June 29, 1998]

ESTRELLITA J. TAMANO, petitioner, vs. HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ,

DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the decision of
the Court of Appeals of 30 September 1996 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 39656 which affirmed
the decision of the Regional Trial Court-Br. 89, Quezon City, denying the motion to
dismiss as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Estrellita J. Tamano.
On 31 May 1958 Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Tamano) married private
respondent Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) in civil rites. Their marriage
supposedly remained valid and subsisting until his death on 18 May 1994. Prior to his
death, particularly on 2 June 1993, Tamano also married petitioner Estrellita J. Tamano
(Estrellita) in civil rites in Malabang, Lanao del Sur.
On 23 November 1994 private respondent Zorayda joined by her son Adib A.
Tamano (Adib) filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Tamano and
Estrellita on the ground that it was bigamous. They contended that Tamano and
Estrellita misrepresented themselves as divorced and single, respectively, thus making
the entries in the marriage contractfalse and fraudulent.
Private respondents alleged that Tamano never divorced Zorayda and that Estrellita
was not single when she married Tamano as the decision annulling her previous
marriage with Romeo C. Llave never became final and executory for non-compliance
with publication requirements.
Estrellita filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City was without jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action. She alleged that
"only a party to the marriage" could file an action for annulment of marriage against the
other spouse,[1] hence, it was only Tamano who could file an action for annulment of
their marriage. Petitioner likewise contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were both
Muslims and married in Muslim rites the jurisdiction to hear and try the instant case was
vested in the sharia courts pursuant to Art. 155 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
The lower court denied the motion to dismiss and ruled that the instant case was
properly cognizable by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City since Estrellita and
Tamano were married in accordance with the Civil Code and not exclusively in
accordance with PD No. 1083[2] or the Code of Muslim Personal laws. The motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied; hence, petitioner filed the instant petition with this
Court seeking to set aside the 18 July 1995 order of respondent presiding judge of the
RTC-Br. 89, Quezon City, denying petitioners motion to dismiss and the 22 August 1995
order denying reconsideration thereof.
In a Resolution dated 13 December 1995 we referred the case to the Court of
Appeals for consolidation with G.R. No. 118371. Zorayda and Adib A. Tamano however
filed a motion, which the Court of Appeals granted, to resolve the Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage ahead of the other consolidated cases.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the instant case would fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of sharia courts only when filed in places where there are sharia courts. But
in places where there are no sharia courts, like Quezon City, the instant case could
properly be filed before the Regional Trial Court.
Petitioner is now before us reiterating her earlier argument that it is the sharia court
and not the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the subject and nature of
the action.
Under The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,[3] Regional Trial Courts have
jurisdiction over all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations.[4] Personal actions, such as the instant complaint for declaration of nullity of
marriage, may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, at the election of the plaintiff.[5] There should be no question by now that what
determines the nature of an action and correspondingly the court which has jurisdiction
over it are the allegations made by the plaintiff in this case.[6] In the complaint for
declaration of nullity of marriage filed by private respondents herein, it was alleged that
Estrellita and Tamano were married in accordance with the provisions of the Civil
Code. Never was it mentioned that Estrellita and Tamano were married under Muslim
laws or PD No. 1083. Interestingly, Estrellita never stated in her Motion to Dismiss that
she and Tamano were married under Muslim laws. That she was in fact married to
Tamano under Muslim laws was first mentioned only in her Motion for Reconsideration.
Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court was not divested of jurisdiction to hear and
try the instant case despite the allegation in the Motion for Reconsideration that
Estrellita and Tamano were likewise married in Muslim rites. This is because a courts
jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion
to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the
complaint.[7] Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the
allegations of the complaint as the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate
facts constituting the plaintiffs causes of action.[8]
Petitioner argues that the sharia courts have jurisdiction over the instant suit
pursuant to Art. 13, Title II, PD No. 1083,[9] which provides -
Art. 13. Application. - (1) The provisions of this Title shall apply to
marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein only
 the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in
accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any part of the Philippines.
(2) In case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim,
solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the Civil
Code of the Philippines shall apply.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the essential
requisites and legal impediments to marriage, divorce, paternity and
filiation, guardianship and custody of minors, support and maintenance,
claims for customary dower (mahr), betrothal, breach of contract to
marry, solemnization and registration of marriage and divorce, rights
and obligations between husband and wife, parental authority, and the
property relations between husband and wife shall be governed by this
Code and other applicable Muslim laws.
As alleged in the complaint, petitioner and Tamano were married in accordance with
the Civil Code. Hence, contrary to the position of petitioner, the Civil Code is applicable
in the instant case. Assuming that indeed petitioner and Tamano were likewise married
under Muslim laws, the same would still fall under the general original jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts.
Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were
married both in civil and Muslim rites. Consequently, the sharia courts are not vested
with original andexclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages celebrated
under both civil and Muslim laws. Consequently, the Regional Trial Courts are not
divested of their general original jurisdiction under Sec. 19, par. (6) of BP Blg. 129 which
provides -
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: x x x (6) In all cases not within
the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions x x x x
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
sustaining the 18 July 1995 and 22 August 1995 orders of the Regional Trial Court - Br.
89, Quezon City, denying the motion to dismiss and reconsideration thereof, is
AFFIRMED. Let the records of this case be immediately remanded to the court of origin
for further proceedings until terminated.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

[1] Motion to Dismiss, p. 3; Rollo, p. 52.