Aragoncillo-Molok vs. Molok Digest
G.R. No. 169627 : April 6, 2011
ROSEMARIE SALMA ARAGONCILLO-MOLOK, Petitioner, v. SITY AISA BARANGAI MOLOK, Respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
Sity Aisa Barangai Molok (respondent) and Col. Agakhan M. Molok (Molok), member of the Philippine Army, contracted marriage on June 29, 1992, solemnized by Judge Hofilena-Europa at the MTC of Davao City. The marriage was registered at the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City.
On November 20, 2003, Molok died in General Santos City. When respondent went to the Philippine Army office to claim the death benefits of her late husband, she discovered that there was another claimant, Rosemarie Salma Aragoncillo-Molok (petitioner), who declared herself as the wife of Molok by virtue of a Certificate of Marriage executed on May 20, 1999 in Taguig, Metro Manila. The marriage, which was purportedly solemnized by Imam Ustadz Moha-imen Ulama (Ulama) under Muslim rites carried out at the Manila Golden Mosque and Cultural Center was registered before the Shari’a District Court Muslim Civil Registrar of Zamboanga City on June 14, 2004.
Upon inquiry, respondent found out that there was no record of the second marriage, per Certification dated August 14, 2004 by Manila Golden Mosque and Cultural Center Administrator. She also discovered that the solemnizing officer, Ulama, never solemnized the supposed marriage of petitioner and Agakhan Molok, as stated in his Affidavit.
Respondent thus filed a verified petition “for cancellation of registration of the alleged marriage” of petitioner and Molok before the Third Shari’a District Court of Zamboanga City. The petition was later amended and impleded the Shari’a District Court Registrar of Zamboanga City and OIC Civil Registrar Duraida A. Abdulbakie praying that the alleged marriage between Col. Molok and the petitioner be cancelled and rendered of no effect.
The petitioner then filed a Manifestation alleging that she was not able to receive a copy of the respondent’s petition and its annexes which prevented her from filing a responsive pleading. Thus, she asked that she be furnished with the said pleadings. However, the trial court ignored her Manifestation and declared the marriage between the petitioner and Molok null and void.
The petitioner then filed a motion for consideration. A date for the hearing was set but due to a non-working Muslim Holiday, no hearing was held. She just received an Order denying her MR before the originally set date for the hearing. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the the petitioner was denied of her right to due process.
HELD:
Petition is Granted
Political Law : Due Process
The Court held that the Petitioner was indeed denied of her right to due process. She was merely notified of the hearing of the respondent’s petition without furnishing her a copy of the said petition and its annexes, despite her plea therefore. The TC gave no reason why her Manifestation that she be furnished with a copy of the petition and its annexes was unheeded. Verily, she was denied her day in court. Therefore, the Court granted the petition and remanded to the Third Shari’a District Court for further proceedings.
GRANTED.
ROSEMARIE SALMA ARAGONCILLO-MOLOK, Petitioner, v. SITY AISA BARANGAI MOLOK, Respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
Sity Aisa Barangai Molok (respondent) and Col. Agakhan M. Molok (Molok), member of the Philippine Army, contracted marriage on June 29, 1992, solemnized by Judge Hofilena-Europa at the MTC of Davao City. The marriage was registered at the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City.
On November 20, 2003, Molok died in General Santos City. When respondent went to the Philippine Army office to claim the death benefits of her late husband, she discovered that there was another claimant, Rosemarie Salma Aragoncillo-Molok (petitioner), who declared herself as the wife of Molok by virtue of a Certificate of Marriage executed on May 20, 1999 in Taguig, Metro Manila. The marriage, which was purportedly solemnized by Imam Ustadz Moha-imen Ulama (Ulama) under Muslim rites carried out at the Manila Golden Mosque and Cultural Center was registered before the Shari’a District Court Muslim Civil Registrar of Zamboanga City on June 14, 2004.
Upon inquiry, respondent found out that there was no record of the second marriage, per Certification dated August 14, 2004 by Manila Golden Mosque and Cultural Center Administrator. She also discovered that the solemnizing officer, Ulama, never solemnized the supposed marriage of petitioner and Agakhan Molok, as stated in his Affidavit.
Respondent thus filed a verified petition “for cancellation of registration of the alleged marriage” of petitioner and Molok before the Third Shari’a District Court of Zamboanga City. The petition was later amended and impleded the Shari’a District Court Registrar of Zamboanga City and OIC Civil Registrar Duraida A. Abdulbakie praying that the alleged marriage between Col. Molok and the petitioner be cancelled and rendered of no effect.
The petitioner then filed a Manifestation alleging that she was not able to receive a copy of the respondent’s petition and its annexes which prevented her from filing a responsive pleading. Thus, she asked that she be furnished with the said pleadings. However, the trial court ignored her Manifestation and declared the marriage between the petitioner and Molok null and void.
The petitioner then filed a motion for consideration. A date for the hearing was set but due to a non-working Muslim Holiday, no hearing was held. She just received an Order denying her MR before the originally set date for the hearing. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the the petitioner was denied of her right to due process.
HELD:
Petition is Granted
Political Law : Due Process
The Court held that the Petitioner was indeed denied of her right to due process. She was merely notified of the hearing of the respondent’s petition without furnishing her a copy of the said petition and its annexes, despite her plea therefore. The TC gave no reason why her Manifestation that she be furnished with a copy of the petition and its annexes was unheeded. Verily, she was denied her day in court. Therefore, the Court granted the petition and remanded to the Third Shari’a District Court for further proceedings.
GRANTED.
