EN BANC

G.R. No. 119064               August 22, 2000

NENG "KAGUI KADIGUIA" MALANG, petitioner, Hadji Abdula then migrated to Tambunan where, in 1972, he married
vs. petitioner Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang, his fourth wife, excluding the
HON. COROCOY MOSON, Presiding Judge of 5th Shari'a District wives he had divorced. They established residence in Cotabato City but
Court, Cotabato City, HADJI MOHAMMAD ULYSSIS MALANG, HADJI they were childless. For a living, they relied on farming and on the
ISMAEL MALINDATU MALANG, FATIMA MALANG, DATULNA business of buying and selling of agricultural products. Hadji Abdula
MALANG, LAWANBAI MALANG, JUBAIDA KADO MALANG, NAYO acquired vast tracts of land in Sousa and Talumanis, Cotabato City,
OMAL MALANG and MABAY GANAP MALANG, respondents. some of which were cultivated by tenants. He deposited money in such
banks as United Coconut Planters Bank, Metrobank and Philippine
DECISION Commercial and Industrial Bank.

GONZAGA-REYES, J.: On December 18, 1993, while he was living with petitioner in Cotabato
City, Hadji Abdula died without leaving a will. On January 21, 1994,
Presented for resolution in this special civil action of certiorari is the issue petitioner filed with the Shari’a District Court in Cotabato City a petition
of whether or not the regime of conjugal partnership of gains governed for the settlement of his estate with a prayer that letters of administration
the property relationship of two Muslims who contracted marriage prior to be issued in the name of her niece, Tarhata Lauban.
the effectivity of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
(hereafter, "P.D. 1083" or "Muslim Code"). The question is raised in Petitioner claimed in that petition that she was the wife of Hadji Abdula;
connection with the settlement of the estate of the deceased husband. that his other legal heirs are his three children named Teng Abdula, Keto
Abdula and Kueng Malang, and that he left seven (7) parcels of land, five
Hadji Abdula Malang, a Muslim, contracted marriage with Aida (5) of which are titled in Hadji Abdula’s name "married to Neng P.
(Kenanday) Limba. They begot three sons named Hadji Mohammad Malang," and a pick-up jeepney.
Ulyssis, Hadji Ismael Malindatu and Datulna, and a daughter named
Lawanbai. Hadji Abdula Malang was engaged in farming, tilling the land On February 7, 1994, the Shari’a District Court ordered the publication of
that was Aida’s dowry (mahr or majar). Thereafter, he bought a parcel of the petition. After such publication or on March 16, 1994, Hadji
1  2 

land in Sousa, Cotabato. Hadji Abdula and Aida already had two children Mohammad Ulyssis Malang ("Hadji Mohammad", for brevity), the eldest
when he married for the second time another Muslim named Jubaida son of Hadji Abdula, filed his opposition to the petition. He alleged among
Kado in Kalumamis, Talayan, Maguindanao. No child was born out of other matters that his father’s surviving heirs are as follows: (a) Jubaida
Hadji Abdula’s second marriage. When Aida, the first wife, was pregnant Malang, surviving spouse; (b) Nayo Malang, surviving spouse; (c) Mabay
with their fourth child, Hadji Abdula divorced her. Malang, surviving spouse; (d) petitioner Neng Malang, surviving spouse;
(e) oppositor Hadji Mohammad Ulyssis Malang who is also known as
In 1965, Hadji Abdula married another Muslim, Nayo H. Omar but they "Teng Abdula," son; (f) Hadji Ismael Malindatu Malang, also known as
were childless. Thereafter, Hadji Abdula contracted marriage with Hadji "Keto Abdula," son, (g) Fatima Malang, also known as "Kueng Malang,"
Mabai (Mabay) H. Adziz in Kalumamis, Talayan, Maguindanao and soon daughter; (h) Datulna Malang, son, and (i) Lawanbai Malang, daughter.
they had a daughter named Fatima (Kueng). Hadji Abdula and Hadji Oppositor Hadji Mohammad Ulyssis Malang alleged that since he and his
Mabai stayed in that place to farm while Hadji Abdula engaged in the brother, Hadji Ismael Malindatu Malang, had helped their father in his
business of buying and selling of rice, corn and other agricultural business, then they were more competent to be administrators of his
products. Not long after, Hadji Abdula married three other Muslim women estate.3

named Saaga, Mayumbai and Sabai but he eventually divorced them.

On March 30, 1994, Jubaida Malang, Ismael Malindatu Malang, Nayo properties of Hadji Abdula. In compliance therewith, Hadji Ismael
16 

Malang, Fatima Malang, Mabay Malang, Datulna Malang and Lawanbai submitted an inventory showing that in Cotabato City, Hadji Abdula had
Malang filed an opposition to the petition, adopting as their own the seven (7) residential lots with assessed value ranging from P5,020.00 to
written opposition of Hadji Mohammad. 4
P25,800.00, an agricultural land with assessed value of P860.00, three
(3) one-storey residential buildings, and one (1) two-storey residential
On April 7, 1994, the Shari’a District Court issued an Order appointing building. All these properties were declared for taxation purposes in
17 

Hadji Mohammad administrator of his father’s properties outside Hadji Abdula’s name.
Cotabato City. The same order named petitioner and Hadji Ismael
Malindatu Malang as joint administrators of the estate in Cotabato City. For her part, petitioner submitted an inventory showing that Hadji Abdula
Each administrator was required to post a bond in the amount of "married to Neng Malang" had seven (7) residential lots with a total
P100,000.00. On April 13, 1994, letters of administration were issued to
5 
assessed value of P243,840.00 in Cotabato City, an Isuzu pick-up
Hadji Mohammad after he had posted the required bond. He took his jeepney valued at P30,000.00 and bank deposits. 18

oath on the same day. The following day, Hadji Ismael and petitioner
6 

likewise filed their respective bonds and hence, they were allowed to take In the Memorandum that she filed with the Shari’a District Court,
their oath as administrators. 7
petitioner asserted that all the properties located in Cotabato City,
including the vehicle and bank deposits, were conjugal properties in
On April 25, 1994 and May 3, 1994, petitioner filed two motions informing accordance with Article 160 of the Civil Code and Article 116 of the
the court that Hadji Abdula had outstanding deposits with nine (9) major Family Code while properties located outside of Cotabato City were
banks. Petitioner prayed that the managers of each of those banks be
8 
exclusive properties of the decedent.19

ordered to submit a bank statement of the outstanding deposit of Hadji

Abdula. The Shari’a District Court having granted the motions, Assistant
9  10 

Vice President Rockman O. Sampuha of United Coconut Planters Bank

informed the court that as of April 24, 1994, the outstanding deposit of
Hadji Abdula amounted to one million five hundred twenty thousand four
hundred pesos and forty-eight centavos (₱1,520,400.48). The Senior
11 

Manager of the Cotabato branch of Metrobank also certified that as of

December 18, 1993, "Hadji Abdula Malang or Malindatu Malang" had on
savings deposit the balance of three hundred seventy-eight thousand
four hundred ninety-three pesos and 32/100 centavos
(P378,493.32). PCIB likewise issued a certification that Hadji Abdula had
12 

a balance of eight hundred fifty pesos (P850.00) in his current account as

of August 11, 1994. 13

During the pendency of the case, petitioner suffered a congestive heart

failure that required immediate medical treatment. On May 5, 1994, she
filed a motion praying that on account of her ailment, she be allowed to
withdraw from UCPB the amount of three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) that shall constitute her advance share in the estate of
Hadji Abdula. After due hearing, the Sharia District Court allowed
14 

petitioner to withdraw the sum of two hundred fifty thousand pesos

(P250,000.00). 15

On May 12, 1994, the Shari’a District Court required petitioner and Hadji
Ismael as joint administrators to submit an inventory and appraisal of all
On the other hand, the oppositors contended in their own Memorandum violence to the provisions of the Civil Code. Be it noted that at the time of
that all the properties left by Hadji Abdula were his exclusive properties the marriage of the petitioner with the decedent, there were already three
for various reasons. First, Hadji Abdula had no conjugal partnership with (3) existing marriages. Assuming for the moment that petitioner and the
petitioner because his having contracted eight (8) marriages with different decedent had agreed that the property regime between them will be
Muslim women was in violation of the Civil Code that provided for a governed by the regime of conjugal partnership property, that agreement
monogamous marriage; a conjugal partnership presupposes a valid civil is null and void for it is against the law, public policy, public order, good
marriage, not a bigamous marriage or a common-law relationship. moral(s) and customs.
Second, the decedent adopted a "complete separation of property
regime" in his marital relations; while his wives Jubaida Kado, Nayo Hadji Under Islamic law, the regime of property relationship is complete
Omal and Mabay Ganap Hadji Adzis contributed to the decedent’s separation of property, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary in
properties, there is no evidence that petitioner had contributed funds for the marriage settlements or any other contract (Article 38, P.D. 1083).
the acquisition of such properties. Third, the presumption that properties There being no evidence of such contrary stipulation or contract, this
acquired during the marriage are conjugal properties is inapplicable Court concludes as it had begun, that the properties in question, both real
because at the time he acquired the properties, the decedent was and personal, are not conjugal, but rather, exclusive property of the
married to four (4) women. Fourth, the properties are not conjugal in decedent. 21

nature notwithstanding that some of these properties were titled in the

name of the decedent "married to Neng Malang" because such Thus, the Shari’a District Court held that the Islamic law should be
description is not conclusive of the conjugal nature of the property. applied in the distribution of the estate of Hadji Abdula and accordingly
Furthermore, because petitioner admitted in her verified petition that the disposed of the case as follows:
properties belonged "to the estate of decedent," she was estopped from
claiming, after formal offer of evidence, that the properties were conjugal
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court orders the following:
in nature just because some of the properties were titled in Hadji
Abdula’s name "married to Neng Malang." Fifth, if it is true that the
properties were conjugal properties, then these should have been 1) That the estate shall pay the corresponding estate tax,
registered in the names of both petitioner and the decedent. 20 reimburse the funeral expenses in the amount of P50,000.00, and
the judicial expenses in the amount of P2,040.80;
In its Order of September 26, 1994, the Shari’a District Court presided by
Judge Corocoy D. Moson held that there was no conjugal partnership of 2) That the net estate, consisting of real and personal properties,
gains between petitioner and the decedent primarily because the latter located in Talayan, Maguindanao and in Cotabato City, is hereby
married eight times. The Civil Code provision on conjugal partnership ordered to be distributed and adjudicated as follows:
cannot be applied if there is more than one wife because "conjugal
partnership presupposes a valid civil marriage, not a plural marriage or a a) Jubaida Kado Malang ------------------------- 2/64 of the
common-law relationship." The court further found that the decedent was estate
"the chief, if not the sole, breadwinner of his families" and that petitioner
did not contribute to the properties unlike the other wives named Jubaida, b) Nayo Omar Malang ------------------------- 2/64 - do -
Nayo and Mabay. The description "married to Neng Malang" in the titles
to the real properties is no more than that –-- the description of the c) Mabai Aziz Malang ------------------------- 2/64 - do -
relationship between petitioner and the decedent. Such description is
insufficient to prove that the properties belong to the conjugal partnership d) Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang ------------------- 2/64 - do
of gains. The court stated: -

In the instant case, decedent had four (4) wives at the time he acquired e) Mohammad Ulyssis Malang-------------------------14/64 -
the properties in question. To sustain the contention of the petitioner that do -
the properties are her conjugal property with the decedent is doing
 f) Ismael Malindatu Malang---------------------------14/64 - do therefore the properties acquired during her marriage could not be
- considered conjugal, and (b) holding that said properties are not conjugal
because under Islamic Law, the regime of relationship is complete
g) Datulna Malang ------------------------- 14/64 - do - separation of property, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary in the
marriage settlement or any other contract. 25

h) Lawanbai Malang ------------------------- 7/64 - do -

As petitioner sees it, "the law applicable on issues of marriage and
i) Fatima (Kueng) Malang ------------------------- 7/64 - do - property regime is the New Civil Code", under which all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. The Shari’a
Court, meanwhile, viewed the Civil Code provisions on conjugal
Total------------------------ 64/64
partnership as incompatible with plural marriage, which is permitted
under Muslim law, and held the applicable property regime to be
3) That the amount of P250,000.00 given to Neng "Kagui complete separation of property under P.D. 1083.
Kadiguia" Malang by way of advance be charged against her
share and if her share is not sufficient, to return the excess; and
Owing to the complexity of the issue presented, and the fact that the case
is one of first impression --- this is a singular situation where the issue on
4) That the heirs are hereby ordered to submit to this court their what law governs the property regime of a Muslim marriage celebrated
Project of Partition for approval, not later than three (3) months prior to the passage of the Muslim Code has been elevated from a
from receipt of this order. Shari’a court for the Court’s resolution --- the Court decided to solicit the
opinions of two amici curiae, Justice Ricardo C. Puno and former
26 

SO ORDERED. Congressman Michael O. Mastura . The Court extends its warmest

27 

thanks to the amici curiae for their valuable inputs in their written

On October 4, 1994, petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of memoranda and in the hearing of June 27, 2000.
28 

that Order. The oppositors objected to that motion. On January 10, 1995,
the Shari’a District Court denied petitioner’s motion for Resolution of the instant case is made more difficult by the fact that very
reconsideration. Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a notice of
22 
few of the pertinent dates of birth, death, marriage and divorce are
appeal. However, on January 19, 1995, she filed a manifestation
23 
established by the record. This is because, traditionally, Muslims do not
withdrawing the notice of appeal on the strength of the following register acts, events or judicial decrees affecting civil status. It also
29 

provisions of P.D. No. 1083: explains why the evidence in the instant case consisted substantially of
oral testimonies.
Art. 145. Finality of Decisions – The decisions of the Shari’a District
Courts whether on appeal from the Shari’a Circuit Court or not shall be What is not disputed is that: Hadji Abdula contracted a total of eight
final. Nothing herein contained shall affect the original and appellate marriages, counting the three which terminated in divorce; all eight
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the Constitution. marriages were celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code and
before the enactment of the Muslim Code; Hadji Abdula divorced four
Petitioner accordingly informed the court that she would be filing "an wives --- namely, Aida, Saaga, Mayumbai and Sabai --- all divorces of
original action of certiorari with the Supreme Court." 24
which took place before the enactment of the Muslim Code; and, Hadji
Abdula died on December 18, 1993, after the Muslim Code and Family
On March 1, 1995, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari with Code took effect, survived by four wives (Jubaida, Nayo, Mabay and
preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. She contends that the Neng) and five children, four of whom he begot with Aida and one with
Shari’a District Court gravely erred in: (a) ruling that when she married Mabay. It is also clear that the following laws were in force, at some point
Hadji Abdula Malang, the latter had three existing marriages with Jubaida or other, during the marriages of Hadji Abdula: the Civil Code, which took
Kado Malang, Nayo Omar Malang and Mabay Ganap Malang and effect on August 30, 1950; Republic Act No. 394 ("R.A. 394"), authorizing
Muslim divorces, which was effective from June 18, 1949 to June 13,
1969; the Muslim Code, which took effect February 4, 1977; and the death) after the effectivity of the Muslim Code? and (7) Are Muslim
Family Code, effective August 3, 1988. divorces effected before the enactment of the Muslim Code valid?

Proceeding upon the foregoing, the Court has concluded that the record The succeeding guidelines, which derive mainly from the Compliance
of the case is simply inadequate for purposes of arriving at a fair and of amicus curiae Justice Puno, are hereby laid down by the Court for the
complete resolution of the petition. To our mind, any attempt at this point reference of respondent court, and for the direction of the bench and bar:
to dispense with the basic issue given the scantiness of the evidence
before us could result in grave injustice to the parties in this case, as well First Collateral Issue: The Law(s) Governing Validity of Muslim Marriages
as cast profound implications on Muslim families similarly or analogously Celebrated Before the Muslim Code
situated to the parties herein. Justice and accountability dictate a
remand; trial must reopen in order to supply the factual gaps or, in The time frame in which all eight marriages of Hadji Abdula were
Congressman Mastura’s words, "missing links", that would be the bases celebrated was during the effectivity of the Civil Code which, accordingly,
for judgment and accordingly, allow respondent court to resolve the governs the marriages. Article 78 of the Civil Code recognized the right
31 

instant case. In ordering thus, however, we take it as an imperative on of Muslims to contract marriage in accordance with their customs and
our part to set out certain guidelines in the interpretation and application rites, by providing that ---
of pertinent laws to facilitate the task of respondent court.
Marriages between Mohammedans or pagans who live in the non-
It will also be recalled that the main issue presented by the petition --- Christian provinces may be performed in accordance with their customs,
concerning the property regime applicable to two Muslims married prior rites or practices. No marriage license or formal requisites shall be
to the effectivity of the Muslim Code --- was interposed in relation to the necessary. Nor shall the persons solemnizing these marriages be obliged
settlement of the estate of the deceased husband. Settlement of estates to comply with article 92.
of Muslims whose civil acts predate the enactment of the Muslim Code
may easily result in the application of the Civil Code and other personal
However, thirty years after the approval of this Code, all marriages
laws, thus convincing the Court that it is but propitious to go beyond the
performed between Muslims or other non-Christians shall be solemnized
issue squarely presented and identify such collateral issues as are
in accordance with the provisions of this Code. But the President of the
required to be resolved in a settlement of estate case. As amicus
Philippines, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of National
curiae Congressman Mastura puts it, the Court does not often come by a
Integration, may at any time before the expiration of said period, by
case as the one herein, and jurisprudence will be greatly enriched by a
proclamation, make any of said provisions applicable to the Muslims and
discussion of the "watershed of collateral issues" that this case presents. 30

non-Christian inhabitants of any of the non-Christian provinces.

The Court has identified the following collateral issues, which we hereby
Notably, before the expiration of the thirty-year period after which
present in question form: (1) What law governs the validity of a Muslim
Muslims are enjoined to solemnize their marriages in accordance with the
marriage celebrated under Muslim rites before the effectivity of the
Civil Code, P.D. 1083 or the Muslim Code was passed into law. The
Muslim Code? (2) Are multiple marriages celebrated before the effectivity
enactment of the Muslim Code on February 4, 1977 rendered nugatory
of the Muslim Code valid? (3) How do the Court’s pronouncements
the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Civil Code which provides that
in People vs. Subano, 73 Phil. 692 (1942), and People vs. Dumpo, 62
marriages between Muslims thirty years after the approval of the Civil
Phil. 246 (1935), affect Muslim marriages celebrated before the effectivity
Code shall be solemnized in accordance with said Code.
of the Muslim Code? (4) What laws govern the property relationship of
Muslim multiple marriages celebrated before the Muslim Code? (5) What
law governs the succession to the estate of a Muslim who died after the Second and Third Collateral Issues: The Validity of Muslim Multiple
Muslim Code and the Family Code took effect? (6) What laws apply to Marriages Celebrated Before the Muslim Code; The Effect of People vs.
the dissolution of property regimes in the cases of multiple marriages Subano and People vs. Dumpo
entered into before the Muslim Code but dissolved (by the husband’s
Prior to the enactment of P.D. 1083, there was no law in this jurisdiction In People vs. Subano, supra, the Court convicted the accused of
which sanctioned multiple marriages. It is also not to be disputed that the
32 
homicide, not parricide, since ---
only law in force governing marriage relations between Muslims and non-
Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950. (f)rom the testimony of Ebol Subano, father of the deceased, it appears
that the defendant has three wives and that the deceased was the last in
The Muslim Code, which is the first comprehensive codification of 33 
point of time. Although the practice of polygamy is approved by custom
Muslim personal laws, also provides in respect of acts that transpired
34 
among these non-Christians, polygamy, however, is not sanctioned by
prior to its enactment: the Marriage Law , which merely recognizes tribal marriage rituals. The
39 

deceased, under our law, is not thus the lawful wife of the defendant and
Art. 186. Effect of code on past acts. --- (1) Acts executed prior to the this precludes conviction for the crime of parricide.
effectivity of this Code shall be governed by the laws in force at the time
of their execution, and nothing herein except as otherwise specifically In People vs. Dumpo, supra, Mora Dumpo was prosecuted for bigamy
provided, shall affect their validity or legality or operate to extinguish any when, legally married to Moro Hassan, she allegedly contracted a second
right acquired or liability incurred thereby. marriage with Moro Sabdapal. The Court acquitted her on the ground that
it was not duly proved that the alleged second marriage had all the
The foregoing provisions are consistent with the principle that all laws essential requisites to make it valid were it not for the subsistence of the
operate prospectively, unless the contrary appears or is clearly, plainly first marriage. As it appears that the consent of the bride’s father is an
and unequivocably expressed or necessarily implied; accordingly, every
35  indispensable requisite to the validity of a Muslim marriage, and as Mora
case of doubt will be resolved against the retroactive opertion of Dumpo’s father categorically affirmed that he did not give his consent to
laws. Article 186 aforecited enunciates the general rule of the Muslim
36  her union with Moro Sabdapal, the Court held that such union could not
Code to have its provisions applied prospectively, and implicitly upholds be a marriage otherwise valid were it not for the existence of the first one,
the force and effect of a pre-existing body of law, specifically, the Civil and resolved to acquit her of the charge of bigamy.
Code --- in respect of civil acts that took place before the Muslim Code’s
enactment. The ruling in Dumpo indicates that, had it been proven as a fact that the
second marriage contained all the essential requisites to make it valid, a
Admittedly, an apparent antagonism arises when we consider that what conviction for bigamy would have prospered.  40

the provisions of the Civil Code contemplate and nurture is a

monogamous marriage. "Bigamous or polygamous marriages" are Fourth Collateral Issue: Law(s) Governing Property Relations of Muslim
considered void and inexistent from the time of their performance. The 37 
Marriages Celebrated Before the Muslim Code
Family Code which superseded the Civil Code provisions on marriage
emphasizes that a subsequent marriage celebrated before the This is the main issue presented by the instant petition. In keeping with
registration of the judgment declaring a prior marriage void shall likewise our holding that the validity of the marriages in the instant case is
be void. These provisions illustrate that the marital relation perceived by
38 
determined by the Civil Code, we hold that it is the same Code that
the Civil Code is one that is monogamous, and that subsequent determines and governs the property relations of the marriages in this
marriages entered into by a person with others while the first one is case, for the reason that at the time of the celebration of the marriages in
subsisting is by no means countenanced. question the Civil Code was the only law on marriage relations, including
property relations between spouses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
Thus, when the validity of Muslim plural marriages celebrated before the Inasmuch as the Family Code makes substantial amendments to the Civil
enactment of the Muslim Code was touched upon in two criminal cases, Code provisions on property relations, some of its provisions are also
the Court applied the perspective in the Civil Code that only one valid material, particularly to property acquired from and after August 3, 1988.
marriage can exist at any given time.
Which law would govern depends upon: (1) when the marriages took Abdula is not capacitated to marry. However, the wives in such marriages
place; (2) whether the parties lived together as husband and wife; and (3) are not precluded from proving that property acquired during their
when and how the subject properties were acquired. cohabitation with Hadji Abdula is their exclusive property,
respectively. Absent such proof, however, the presumption is that
42 

Following are the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code: property acquired during the subsistence of a valid marriage --- and in the
Civil Code, there can only be one validly existing marriage at any given
Art. 119. The future spouses may in the marriage settlements agree upon time --- is conjugal property of such subsisting marriage.  43

absolute or relative community of property, or upon complete separation

of property, or upon any other regime. In the absence of marriage With the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, the following
settlements, or when the same are void, the system of relative provisions of the said Code are pertinent:
community or conjugal partnership of gains as established in this Code
shall govern the property relations between husband and wife. Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each
other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the
Art. 135. All property brought by the wife to the marriage, as well as all benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries
property she acquires during the marriage, in accordance with article shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by
148, is paraphernal. both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules
on co-ownership.
Art. 136. The wife retains the ownership of the paraphernal property.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they
Art. 142. By means of the conjugal partnership of gains the husband and lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint
wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For
income from their work or industry, and divide equally, upon the purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition
dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits of the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed
obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the marriage. jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care
and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Art. 143. All property of the conjugal partnership of gains is owned in
common by the husband and wife. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her
share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in
common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of
The Civil Code also provides in Article 144:
the cohabitation.
When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share
are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property
of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of
acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their
their common children. In case of default or of waiver by any or all of the
wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to
the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants,
In a long line of cases, this Court has interpreted the co-ownership such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture
provided in Article 144 of the Civil Code to require that the man and shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
woman living together as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under a void marriage must not in any way be incapacitated
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article,
to marry. Situating these rulings to the instant case, therefore, the co-
41 

only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual
ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code cannot apply to
joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them
Hadji Abdula’s marriages celebrated subsequent to a valid and legally
in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence
existing marriage, since from the point of view of the Civil Code Hadji
of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child would appear to be in point. Thus,
presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to the Civil Code provides:
joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
Art. 255. Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the celebration of the marriage, and before three hundred days following its
co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be
partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad legitimate.
faith is not validly married to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in
the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article. Against this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of
the physical impossibility of the husband’s having access to his wife
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties within the first one hundred and twenty days of the three hundred which
are in bad faith. preceded the birth of the child.

It will be noted that while the Civil Code merely requires that the parties This physical impossibility may be caused:
"live together as husband and wife" the Family Code in Article 147
specifies that they "live exclusively with each other as husband and wife." (1) By the impotence of the husband;
Also, in contrast to Article 144 of the Civil Code as interpreted by
jurisprudence, Article 148 of the Family Code allows for co-ownership in (2) By the fact that the husband and wife were living separately,
cases of cohabitation where, for instance, one party has a pre-existing in such a way that access was not possible;
valid marriage, provided that the parties prove their "actual joint
contribution of money, property, or industry" and only to the extent of their
(3) By the serious illness of the husband.
proportionate interest therein. The rulings in Juaniza vs. Jose, 89 SCRA
306, Camporodendo vs. Garcia, 102 Phil. 1055, and related cases are
embodied in the second paragraph of Article 148, which declares that the Art. 256. The child shall be presumed legitimate, although the mother
share of the party validly married to another shall accrue to the property may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as
regime of such existing marriage. an adulteress.

Fifth and Sixth Collateral Issues: Law(s) on Succession and Dissolution If the child was conceived or born during the period covered by the
of Property Regimes governance of the Muslim Code, i.e., from February 4, 1977 up to the
death of Hadji Abdula on December 18, 1993, the Muslim Code
determines the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child. Under the Muslim
Hadji Abdula died intestate on December 16, 1993. Thus, it is the Muslim
Code:
Code which should determine the identification of the heirs in the order of
intestate succession and the respective shares of the heirs.
Art. 58. Legitimacy, how established. --- Legitimacy of filiation is
established by the evidence of valid marriage between the father and the
Meanwhile, the status and capacity to succeed on the part of the
mother at the time of the conception of the child.
individual parties who entered into each and every marriage ceremony
will depend upon the law in force at the time of the performance of the
marriage rite. Art. 59. Legitimate children. ---

The status and capacity to succeed of the children will depend upon the (1) Children conceived in lawful wedlock shall be presumed to be
law in force at the time of conception or birth of the child. If the child was legitimate. Whoever claims illegitimacy of or impugns such
conceived or born during the period covered by the governance of the filiation must prove his allegation.
Civil Code, the Civil Code provisions on the determination of the
 (2) Children born after six months following the consummation of R.A. 394 authorized absolute divorce among Muslims residing in non-
marriage or within two years after the dissolution of the marriage Christian provinces, in accordance with Muslim custom, for a period of 20
shall be presumed to be legitimate. Against this presumption no years from June 18, 1949 (the date of approval of R.A. 394) to June 13,
evidence shall be admitted other than that of physical 1969. Thus, a Muslim divorce under R.A. 394 is valid if it took place from
45 

impossibility of access between the parents at or about the time June 18, 1949 to June 13, 1969.
of the conception of the child.
From the seven collateral issues that we discussed, we identify four
Art. 60. Children of subsequent marriage. --- Should the marriage be corollary issues as to further situate the points of controversy in the
dissolved and the wife contracts another marriage after the expiration of instant case for the guidance of the lower court. Thus:
her ‘idda, the child born within six months from the dissolution of the prior
marriage shall be presumed to have been conceived during the former 1. Which of the several marriages was validly and legally existing
marriage, and if born thereafter, during the latter. at the time of the opening of the succession of Hadji Abdula when
he died in 1993? The validly and legally existing marriage would
Art. 61. Pregnancy after dissolution. --- If, after the dissolution of be that marriage which was celebrated at a time when there was
marriage, the wife believes that she is pregnant by her former husband, no other subsisting marriage standing undissolved by a valid
she shall, within thirty days from the time she became aware of her divorce or by death. This is because all of the marriages were
pregnancy, notify the former husband or his heirs of that fact. The celebrated during the governance of the Civil Code, under the
husband or his heirs may ask the court to take measures to prevent a rules of which only one marriage can exist at any given time.
simulation of birth.
Whether or not the marriage was validly dissolved by a Muslim
Upon determination of status and capacity to succeed based on the divorce depends upon the time frame and the applicable law.  A 1âwphi1

foregoing provisions, the provisions on legal succession in the Muslim Muslim divorce under R.A. No. 394 is valid if it took place from
Code will apply. Under Article 110 of the said Code, the sharers to an June 18, 1949 to June 13, 1969, and void if it took place from
inheritance include: June 14, 1969. 46

(a) The husband, the wife; 2. There being a dispute between the petitioner and the
oppositors as regards the heirship of the children begotten from
(b) The father, the mother, the grandfather, the grandmother; different marriages, who among the surviving children are
legitimate and who are illegitimate? The children conceived and
(c) The daughter and the son’s daughter in the direct line; born of a validly existing marriage as determined by the first
corollary issue are legitimate. The fact and time of conception or
birth may be determined by proof or presumption depending upon
(d) The full sister, the consanguine sister, the uterine sister and
the time frame and the applicable law.
the uterine brother.
3. What properties constituted the estate of Hadji Abdula at the
When the wife survives with a legitimate child or a child of the decedent’s
time of his death on December 18, 1993? The estate of Hadji
son, she is entitled to one-eighth of the hereditary estate; in the absence
Abdula consists of the following:
of such descendants, she shall inherit one-fourth of the estate. The
44 

respective shares of the other sharers, as set out in Article 110

abovecited, are provided for in Articles 113 to 122 of P.D. 1083. a. Properties acquired during the existence of a valid
marriage as determined by the first corollary issue are
conjugal properties and should be liquidated and divided
Seventh Collateral Issue: Muslim Divorces Before the Effectivity of the
between the spouses under the Muslim Code, this being
Muslim Code
the law in force at the time of Hadji Abdula’s death.
 b. Properties acquired under the conditions prescribed in several unions, the dates of their respective conceptions or births in
Article 144 of the Civil Code during the period August 30, relation to paragraphs 1 and 2 above, thereby indicating their status as
1950 to August 2, 1988 are conjugal properties and lawful heirs.
should be liquidated and divided between the spouses
under the Muslim Code. However, the wives other than Amicus curiae Congressman Mastura agrees that since the marriage of
the lawful wife as determined under the first corollary petitioner to decedent took place in 1972 the Civil Code is the law
issue may submit their respective evidence to prove that applicable on the issue of marriage settlement,  but espouses that
47 

any of such property is theirs exclusively. customs or established practices among Muslims in Mindanao must also
be applied with the force of law to the instant case. Congressman
48 

c. Properties acquired under the conditions set out in Mastura’s disquisition has proven extremely helpful in impressing upon
Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code during the period us the background in which Islamic law and the Muslim Code need to be
from and after August 3, 1988 are governed by the rules interpreted, particularly the interconnectedness of law and religion for
on co-ownership. Muslims and the impracticability of a strict application of the Civil Code to
49 

plural marriages recognized under Muslim law. Regrettably, the Court is

50 

d. Properties acquired under conditions not covered by duty-bound to resolve the instant case applying such laws and rights as
the preceding paragraphs and obtained from the are in existence at the time the pertinent civil acts took place. Corollarily,
exclusive efforts or assets of Hadji Abdula are his we are unable to supplant governing law with customs, albeit how widely
exclusive properties. observed. In the same manner, we cannot supply a perceived hiatus in
P.D. 1083 concerning the distribution of property between divorced
4. Who are the legal heirs of Hadji Abdula, and what are their spouses upon one of the spouses’ death. 51

shares in intestacy? The following are Hadji Abdula’s legal heirs:

(a) the lawful wife, as determined under the first corollary issue, WHEREFORE, the decision dated September 26, 1994 of the Fifth
and (2) the children, as determined under the second corollary Shari’a District Court of Cotabato City in Special Proceeding No. 94-40 is
issue. The Muslim Code, which was already in force at the time of SET ASIDE, and the instant petition is REMANDED for the reception of
Hadji Abdula’s death, will govern the determination of their additional evidence and the resolution of the issues of the case based on
respective shares. the guidelines set out in this Decision.

As we have indicated early on, the evidence in this case is inadequate to SO ORDERED.
resolve in its entirety the main, collateral and corollary issues herein
presented and a remand to the lower court is in order. Accordingly, Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
evidence should be received to supply the following proofs: (1) the exact Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,
dates of the marriages performed in accordance with Muslim rites or and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
practices; (2) the exact dates of the dissolutions of the marriages
terminated by death or by divorce in accordance with Muslim rites and
practices, thus indicating which marriage resulted in a conjugal
partnership under the criteria prescribed by the first, second, and third
collateral issues and the first corollary issue; (3) the exact periods of Footnotes
actual cohabitation ("common life" under a "common roof") of each of the
marriages during which time the parties lived together; (4) the
identification of specific properties acquired during each of the periods of Record, p. 14.
1 

cohabitation referred to in paragraph 3 above, and the manner and

source of acquisition, indicating joint or individual effort, thus showing the Exhs. C-1, D-1 & E-1.
2 

asset as owned separately, conjugally or in co-ownership; and (5) the

identities of the children (legitimate or illegitimate) begotten from the Record, p. 20.
3 
 Ibid., p. 28.
4  22 
Ibid., pp. 280-281.

Ibid., p. 31.
5  23 
Ibid., p. 282.

Ibid., pp. 32-36.

6  24 
Ibid., p. 284.

Ibid., pp. 37-49.

7  25 
Petition, pp. 5 & 10.

These banks were allegedly: (1) United Coconut Planters Bank;

8 
Retired Justice of the Court of Appeals and former Minister of
26 

(2) Solidbank; (3) Far East Bank and Trust Company; (4) Justice, author, noted civil law professor, and law practitioner. He
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank; (5) Bank of the was also a member of the Family Code Revision Committee.
Philippine Islands; (6) Metrobank; (7) Philippine National Bank;
(8) Land Bank of the Philippines, and (9) Development Bank of Former Congressman, law practitioner, and member of the
27 

the Philippines. Presidential Code Commission which reviewed P.D. 1083.

Record, pp. 50 & 59.

9 
Justice Puno’s Compliance by Amicus Curiae was submitted on
28 

June 27, 2000 while Congressman Mastura’s Memorandum was

10 
Ibid., p. 52 & 61. submitted on March 29, 2000.

11 
Ibid., p. 220 (Exh. CC). The registration of marriages, divorces, revocations of divorce
29 

and conversions into Islam is now required under Title VI (Civil

12 
Ibid, p. 219 (Exh. BB). Registry) of P.D. 1083.

13 
Ibid., p. 221 (Exh. DD). 30 
TSN, Oral Argument of July 27, 2000, p. 26.

14 
Ibid., pp. 62-63. As amended by Republic Act No. 6268, which was approved on
31 

June 19, 1971 and was made to take effect as of June 18, 1969.
15 
Ibid., p. 102-103.
Article 27 of P.D. 1083 now provides: "Notwithstanding the rule
32 

16 
Ibid., p. 97. of Islamic law permitting a Muslim to have more than one wife but
not more than four at a time, no Muslim male can have more than
one wife unless he can deal with them with equal companionship
17 
Ibid., pp. 123-126.
and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law and only in
exceptional cases."
18 
Ibid., p. 108.
The Explanatory Note to the Draft Muslim Code states: "This
33 
19 
Ibid., pp. 229-232. (Code) is the first fundamental concept that the Muslim legal
system breathes into the Philippine legal system which has
20 
Ibid., pp. 222-228. recognized to the present only the application of jural rules of
mainly non-Muslim origin."
21 
Order of September 26, 1994, pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 25-56.
 Includes all laws on personal status, marriage and divorce,
34 
The 20-year period expired on June 13, 1969, considering that
45 

matrimonial and family relations, succession and inheritance, and there were five leap years (1952, 1956, 1960, 1964 and 1968)
property relations between spouses. Muslim Code, Art. 7, par. (i). since the approval of R.A. 394 in 1949.

Commisioner vs. Lingayen Gulf E;ectric Power Co., 164 SCRA

35 
Divorce provisions are now embodied in Articles 45 to 55 of the
46 

27; Castro vs.. Collector of Internal Revenue, 6 Scar 886; Ichiong Muslim Code. Under Article 13 of the same Code, the provisions
vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155. on divorce apply to marriages "wherein both parties are Muslims,
or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is
36 
Segovia vs. Noel, 47 Phil. 220. solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any
part of the Philippines."
37 
Civil Code, Art. 80, par. 4.
47 
Memorandum of Amicus Curiae, p. 9.
38 
Family Code, Arts. 52, 53.
Ibid., pp. 9, 27, 35-37, 42. Congressman Mastura particularly
48 

The Marriage Law, approved on December 4, 1929, preceded

39  suggests that the Court take judicial notice of the principle of sa-
the Civil Code of 1950 and was the governing law when pancharian on property acquired through the joint efforts of the
People vs. Subano was promulgated. husband and wife, judicially recognized by the Muslim courts of
Malaysia and Singapore and also allegedly practiced as custom
by Muslims in Mindanao.
This is significantly changed by the enactment of P.D. 1083,
40 

Article 180 of which provides: "The provisions of the Revised

Penal Code relative to the crime of bigamy shall not apply to a
49 
Ibid., pp. 12, 18; TSN, Oral Argument, pp. 15-17.
person married in accordance with the provisions of this (Muslim)
Code or, before its effectivity, under Muslim law. " 50 
TSN, Oral Argument, p. 18 et. seq.

Adriano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124118, March 27, 2000;

41  TSN, Oral Argument, p. 24; Memorandum of Amicus Curiae, p.
51 

Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 303; Juaniza vs. 14.

Jose, 89 SCRA 306; Camporodendo vs. Aznar, 102 Phil. 1055;
Osmeña vs. Rodriguez, 54 O.G. 5526; Malajacan vs. Rubi, 42
O.G. 5576.

In Osmeña vs. Rodriguez, supra, the Court ruled that a parcel of

42 

land acquired in the subsistence of a prior valid marriage did not

belong to the conjugal estate of such marriage, in the face of
evidence submitted by the common-law wife that such land was
her exclusive property.

Civil Code, Art. 160; Adriano vs. Court of Appeals, supra;

43 

Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, supra.

44 
Art. 112, Muslim Code.