Ali Bondagjy v.

Artadi
G.R. 170406 – August 11, 2008
J. Carpio-Morales

Topic: Judgment – Effect of Judgment

Case Summary: Fouziy and Sabrina were married in 1988. In 1996, Sabrina filed for divorce by faskh in a Shari’a
Court in Basilan, and was denied for lack of evidence to support allegations. She then tried to obtain a declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage before the RTC of Muntinlupa; was denied for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of
the parties. She then attempted to file another petition for divorce by faskh before the Second Shari’a Circuit Court
in Marawi. The court dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata, among others. Sabrina then appealed this to
the Fourth Shari’a Judical District Court, and the court reversed the decision of the lower court. The SC held that res
judicata does not apply in the case. For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the ff. requisites
must concur: (1) former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it
must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the SM and the parties; (4) there must be, as between
the first and second actions, identity of parties; of subject matter, and of causes of action. In the case at bar, there is
no identity of causes of action. The periods that were complained of in the past judgments that had already become
final, were different from the periods complained of in the present petition. The case was remanded for further
investigation of evidence.

Facts:
 February 4, 1988: Fouziy and Sabrina got married in accordance with Islamic Law at the Manila Hotel
o After a few years, the union soured
 March 1996: Sabrina filed for divorce by faskh1 before the Third Shari’a Circuit Court at Isabela, Basilan (SCC No.
541)
o The Court dismissed the petition: grounds for divorce are mere allegations without evidence to support
them
o MFR was also denied
 March 20, 1998: Sabrina then filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, custody and support.
Before the RTC of Muntinlupa City
o Dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the parties; they being Muslims at the
time of the marriage, and res judicata in view of the above-said dismissal order of the Third Shari’a Circuit
Court
 February 7, 2005: Sabrina then filed another petition for divorce by faskh before the Second Shari’a Circuit Court
(SSCC) in Marawi City (CC No. 2005-111) on the grounds of neglect and failure of petitioner to provide support
and to perform his marital obligations
o Fouziy raised the affirmative defenses of res judicata, lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
and forum-shopping
o The court dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata and failure to comply with the rule on forum
shopping
o Sabrina appealed to the Fourth Shari’a Judicial District Court in Marawi City (FSJDC)
 The court ruled that res judicata does not apply in the case at bar sine Sabrina may have new
evidence to prove that she is indeed entitled to divorce
 Fouziy now contends that the FSJDC erred in remanding the case to the SSCC since there was no new evidence in
the pleadings; he also asserted that it was Sabrina who refused to cohabit with him, so he cannot be faulted for
failing to support her and their children

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the case should be dismissed because of res judicata – NO
 For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the ff. requisites must concur:

1
Faskh-e-Nikah is the dissolution of a marriage by an Islamic Court
 o (1) former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must
have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the SM and the parties; (4) there must be, as
between the first and second actions, identity of parties; of subject matter, and of causes of action
o The presence of the first three is undisputed, the fourth requisite, however, we must examine further
 The Court finds no such identity of causes of action
 The test of identity of causes of action lies NOT in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would
support and establish the former and present causes of action
o If the same evidence would sustain both actions, they are considered the same and covered by the rule that
the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action
 Under PD 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, the court may decree a divorce by faskh, upon petition of the
wife, on any of the following grounds: (only listed down those that were emphasized by the SC as relevant to the
case at bar)
o (a) neglect or failure of the husband to provide support for the family for at least six consecutive months;
(c) failure of the husband to perform for six months without reasonable cause his martial obligation in
accordance with this code
 The material allegations in respondent’s petition in SCC Case: (included those highlighted by the Court)
o “On account of the continued absences and complete disregard of defendant of his obligation to the
plaintiff and their children, plaintiff decided to come back to the Philippines after six years of their
married life with their children sometime in October 1993 and stayed with plaintiff’s mother”
o “On the other hand, despite the fact that defendant refused to perform a divorce by thalaq to the plaintiff,
defendant also continuously failed and refused to give financial support, companionship as well as love
and affection to the plaintiff and her children even up to the present time.”
 The material allegations in respondent’s petition in CC Case:
o “That while Petitioner’s earlier attempts in seeking divorce failed, the Respondent harassed and coerced
her by filing unfounded cases which added to the Petitioner’s worries and anxieties”;
o “That the Petitioner is willing to narrate before this Honorable Court the untold sufferings and pain that
she had incurred during her years of marriage with Respondent, which would justify the issuance of a
Divorce by Faskh…”
o “That since then, Respondent has failed and continuously failed to perform his legal, moral and religious
obligations to support the Petitioner and her children for a period of more than 10 years…”
 From the foregoing material allegations in the two petitions, the Court finds that the causes of action are based on
different periods during which petitioner allegedly neglected or failed to support his family and perform his mrital
obligations
o SCC 541 which was dismissed in 1996 covered the period prior to March 1996, while CC 2005-111 subject
to the present petition was filed on February of 2005, and it covered the period in the interim
 This means that Petitioner’s alleged negligence and/or failure to support and perform marital
obligations occurred at two different times for each of the petitions
 The causes of action in the two cases are thus independent of each other, the circumstances
relating to non-support and non-performance of marital obligations being disparate
 Respondent would thus have to present evidence in support of her petition
 It must be noted that the Third Sharia Circuit Court (TSCC) merely evaluated “the pleadings submitted” following
which it concluded that the grounds relied upon “does not exist as of the moment”
o In so doing, the said court applied Paragraph 6 of the Special Rules of Procedure in Shari’a Courts:
 (3) Should the court find, upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and memoranda, that a
judgment may be rendered without need of a formal hearing, the court may do so within 15 days
from the submission of the case for decision
o To reiterate the TSCC decided SCC 541 merely on the basis of the pleadings of the parties
 In a similar vein, the SSCC denied Sabrina’s petition in CC only after conducting a hearing of the affirmative
defenses and a consideration of the memoranda submitted by the parties in connection therewith
 In other words, both courts did NOT conduct a formal hearing of Sabrina’s petitions
 The Order dismissing SCC 541 does not constitute res judicata on CC No. 2005-111
o Nor does the order dismissing CC no. 98-070, an action for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
under the Family Code  for grounds of nullity of marriage under the FC are dissimilar to the grounds for
divorce by faskh under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Besides, CC No. 98-070 was, in the main,
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and the respondent
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Let the records be REMANDED to the court of origin.