Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CivPro (Jara Notes 2013)
CivPro (Jara Notes 2013)
We take up Part II of the lectures on Remedial Law. You are through with Part I criminal procedure and
evidence. You were forced to read criminal procedure ahead of civil procedure because that is the curricula that
is required by the board of legal interpretation for law schools. You see, criminal procedure is taken up in 2nd
year much ahead of civil procedure. Criminal procedure really is taken up by 2nd year law students and then
civil procedure is taken up by 3rd year law students. The other reason why there was a lecture on criminal
procedure ahead of civil procedure is to emphasize that, although learned in criminal procedure that, generally,
the criminal action carries the civil aspect of the case, with regard to the civil aspect of the case, we usually do
not apply the rules for civil procedure.
X X X the defendant the accused , after he enters the plea of not guilty, is not required to file an answer to the
civil aspect of the case. It is enough that he pleads not guilty. That plea of not guilty is also a denial of this
probable civil remedy. This is also the reason why, in a civil aspect that is brought along by the criminal action,
we dont apply the rule on specific denial. This is required in civil cases. In a criminal case, the plea of [not]
guilty is not considered a specific denial if we apply the rules on civil cases because the plea of not guilty will
if there is a plea of not guilty, the court cannot compel the accused to explain why he is entering such plea. If he
chooses to plead not guilty, the court can do nothing about it. The court cannot ask the accused: what are your
reasons? what are your defenses? Unlike in a purely civil action where there is a civil complaint filed against the
defendant and the defendant simply tells the court in his answer, I deny liability. If we apply civil procedure,
that is a judicial admission of liability. In fact, that kind of denial in a civil case may lead to a judgment on the
pleadings. In civil, purely civil cases, not the civil aspect of a criminal case there is always a need for specific
denial which is not, again, required in the civil aspect of a criminal case. So do not have the impression that
although a criminal case carries with it, generally, the civil aspect of the case We dont apply civil procedure to
the civil aspect. That criminal case which carries with it the civil aspect will always be governed by criminal
procedure, not by civil procedure.
The only difference, probably, that can be cited with respect to procedural rules governing the civil aspect of a
criminal case will be the quantum of evidence. You learned in criminal procedure that the guilt of the accused
shall be demonstrated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. But in so far as the civil aspect of the case is
concerned, the quantum should only be preponderance of evidence. So that, in a criminal case, it is very likely
that the accused will be acquitted of the crime but he can be held civilly liable because the quantum of evidence
used, in so far as the civil aspect, is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but only preponderance of evidence.
But just like in criminal procedure, we always start with the topic on jurisdiction of courts. With respect to
jurisdiction over civil actions, we have several laws governing jurisdiction of courts in civil cases. Primarily, we
Since we are talking about annulment of judgment, we might just as well go to the procedural principles and X
X X to Rule 47 and thats the rule on annulment of judgment. You will notice it is Rule 47 of the Rules which
gives us the procedure to be followed when it comes to annulment of judgment The annulment of judgment
mentioned in Rule 47 is the annulment of judgment conferred by B.P. 129 to the Court of Appeals. In Rule 47, we
will notice that the 1st part the 1st few sections of that very short rule speaks about how a petition to annul a
judgment of a Regional Trial Court is filed with the Court of Appeals what the Court of Appeals can do after
the filing of the petition. But in the last 2 or 3 sections of Rule 47, the topic is suddenly changed from annulment
of judgment rendered by a Regional Trial Court to annulment of judgment rendered by an inferior court. So
there is a jump from annulment of judgments rendered by the Regional Trial Court to annulment of judgment
rendered by an inferior court. And in these last few sections of Rule 47, the Supreme Court says that a judgment
of an inferior court can be annulled although there is again no mention B.P. 129. And the court that has
jurisdiction original exclusive jurisdiction to annul a judgment rendered by an inferior court is a Regional
Trial Court. Can we not challenge the Supreme Court under Rule 47 to a Regional Trial Court of authority to
annul the judgment of an inferior court considering that B.P. 129 does not expressly give to a Regional Trial
Court authority to annul the judgment of an inferior court? We cannot because, under B.P. 129, there is an
allocation to the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction to entertain and decide all kinds of actions which are not
especially given to other courts. In other words, that provision of B.P. 129 is the justification why our books treat
the Regional Trial Court as a court of general jurisdiction. In fact, it is only the Regional Trial Court that is
considered as a court of general jurisdiction in our system and it is because of that provision in B.P. 129. If you
conceive about an action and then you start asking yourself which court has jurisdiction over this action. But
then you go through a process of elimination. If you entertain the idea of going to the Supreme Court, then you
just read the Constitution. And then you eliminate the Supreme Court if it has no authority under the
Constitution. Then you go to the Court of Appeals. Then you read B.P. 129. If, under B.P. 129, the Court of
Appeals does not have jurisdiction then it does not really have jurisdiction. Then you go to an inferior court. If
an inferior court also does not have jurisdiction, then you can be sure it is a Regional Trial Court that has
jurisdiction over the case. That is the principle is followed by Rule 47 when the Supreme Court, in the last few
sections of Rule 47, inserted a provision saying that with respect to the decisions of an inferior court, it is a
Regional Trial Court that has exclusive original jurisdiction. Because while there is an action known as
annulment of judgment rendered by an inferior court, since substantive laws have not allocated authority to
decide these cases to any other court, then it follows that it is a Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction over
these cases.
In our study of Rule 47, the threshold case that you probably read or was assigned to read is that case of Islamic
Dawah v. Court of Appeals. In that case, the Supreme Court traced the history of annulment of judgment as an
Is there a difference actually between Rule 47, that is a petition to annul the judgment rendered by a Regional
Trial Court in a civil case, to a petition for habeas corpus, which is a special proceeding but designed to set aside
the decision of a Regional Trial Court in a purely criminal case? There are substantial differences. Annulment of
judgment under Rule 47 is what we call as a direct attack on a final and executor judgment. The only purpose
why a party X X X resorts to Rule 47 is to have the decision declared null and void nullified and set aside. But
in a criminal case where the decision of the RTC may not be valid because of the same reasons given in Rule 47
lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud the remedy is habeas corpus which is not a direct attack on the judgment
rendered by a Regional Trial Court. Habeas corpus, in other words, is an indirect attack on the judgment of a
Regional Trial Court in this criminal case. Why is it an indirect attack unlike annulment, which is a direct attack
on a judgment? In habeas corpus, where it is filed in order to nullify a decision of a Regional Trial Court in a
criminal case, the principal relief which the petitioner in habeas corpus seeks is to declare that the petitioner has
been deprived of his liberty unlawfully unlawful deprivation of a right that is the principal relief which
habeas corpus seeks. It is not principally to set aside a judgment of a Regional Trial Court in that criminal case.
So that if you compare these remedies which seek to nullify or set aside the judgment of a Regional Trial Court
in a civil case and in a criminal case, the remedies of the petitioner in a criminal case are more advantageous
than simply compared to an annulment of judgment. Because annulment of judgment is a direct attack on the
judgment. While in a criminal case, the detainee or prisoner can challenge the validity of the judgment of
conviction although he is not attacking directly the validity of the judgment of conviction. He is attacking the
validity of the deprivation of his liberty.
You will also notice that Rule 47 is inserted in the 16 or 17 rules concerning appeals. In our Rules, the procedure
for appeal starts with Rule 40 and it ends up with Rule 56. So from Rule 40 up to Rule 56, the topic of these 16 or
17 different rules is always cases on appeal. Except now Rule 47, thats why the insertion is quite scandalous.
Annulment of judgment should have been included in the enumeration of special civil actions because it is
incorporated in the Rules on appeal but annulment of judgment has nothing to do with appeals. B.P. 129
considers annulment of judgment as an original action to be filed with the Court of Appeals or with a Regional
Trial Court. And in Rule 47, particularly applied to a petition for annulment commenced before the Court of
Appeals, you will notice that some of the features of a special civil action are carried by a petition to annul the
judgment filed with the Court of Appeals. For instance, if a petition to annul a judgment of a Regional Trial
Court in a civil case is filed before the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals has the authority to outrightly
dismiss the petition. That is similar to Rule 65 where a court can outrightly dismiss a petition for certiorari if it is
not meritorious on its face. That is, of course, provided in Rule 47. The Court of Appeals can outrightly dismiss a
petition to annul a judgment. So if the petitioner has in mind stopping the execution or preventing the execution
of a final and executory judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court by making use of Rule 47, there is a big
With respect to real actions, that is title to or possession of property this is now qualified by the amendment to
B.P. 129 which expanded the jurisdiction of inferior courts. These are the actions involving title to or possession
of real property: accion reinvindicatoria, accion publiciana they are cognizable by a Regional Trial Court
exercising exclusive original jurisdiction as long as the assessed value of the property is more than P20,000 or
P50,000, as the case may be. So you have to relate it to the expanded jurisdiction of the inferior courts. But with
respect to unlawful detainer and forcible entry they are also actions involving possession of real property
then they are always cognizable exclusively by an inferior court, regardless of the assessed value of the property.
Is it possible that an action is a real action and at the same time one that is not capable of pecuniary estimation?
The answer is also yes. We have such actions. They are real actions but they are also incapable of pecuniary
estimation. A good example is foreclosure of real estate mortgage since the property in mortgage to be
foreclosed is a mortgage constituted over real property, then that foreclosure of real mortgage is a real action
but, at the same time, it is not capable of pecuniary estimation because the issue to be resolved by the court by
the foreclosure court is always this issue: does the mortgagee (the plaintiff) have the right to foreclose? That
issue is not capable of pecuniary estimation. So what do we do in determining jurisdiction if an action is both a
real action and one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation? What factor will be determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court? Will it be the assessed value of the property or will it be the fact that the issue involved
is not capable of pecuniary estimation? Again, this is a settle issue. The Supreme Court said that if an action
carries the feature both of incapable of pecuniary estimation and a real action, like foreclosure of real mortgage,
the determinative factor is the feature of incapable of pecuniary estimation. So it is a Regional Trial Court that
will always have jurisdiction over foreclosure of real mortgage even if the assessed value of the property sought
to be foreclosed is only P1,000. As long as the action is foreclosure of mortgage, the action is exclusively
cognizable by a Regional Trial Court. So if you find in one action the 2 features which could be determinative of
jurisdiction incapable of pecuniary estimation and real action the determining factor will always be that
characteristic that it is not capable of pecuniary estimation. So it is a Regional Trial Court that will have
jurisdiction. The feature of foreclosure of mortgage as a real action will only be important in determining the
venue of the action but not the jurisdiction of the court. A similar action which applies the same principle is
expropriation of a piece of land. Expropriation of a piece of land is also a real action because it involves title to or
possession of real property. But expropriation of a piece of land will not take into account the assessed value of
the land sought to be expropriated for purposes of determining jurisdiction over the case. According to the
Court, expropriation, although it could be a real action, is also an action that is not capable of pecuniary
estimation. So expropriation of real property, even if the assessed value again is P1,000, will always be
cognizable by a Regional Trial Court.
Now we go the Rules of Court. In analyzing the provisions of the 1997 Rules of Court you should always bear in
mind the consitutional limits that are provided by the Constitution to the authoity of the SC on the rules on
pleadings, practice and procedure, like the ROC, the rules should be uniform in all courts of the same grade and
then the rules should provide for a speedy and inexpensive determination of the case and then the rules should
not increase, decrease or modify substantive rights. So if there is any rule on procedure which violates any one
of these limitations given under the Consitution, we may then properly challenge the applicability and validity
of these rules of procedure. There was one litigant who challenged the validity of a Rule in Criminal Procedure,
its Rule 115, and Rule 115 of Criminal Procedure really speaks not about procedure but more of the rights of the
accused. So the party said that Rule 115 should be excluded from the Rules of Court for it is not procedural but
substantive. It modifies, increases or decreases the rights of the person given by substantive law. The SC denied
immediately executory. If the parties violate the terms of the agreement, the remedy is to move for execution. In
this case when the parties submitted the compromise agreement before the court, that becomes the law between
the parties and it cannot be set aside becased on failure to comply with his obligations.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Summary Procedure refers to Summary Procedure followed by inferior courts in Unlawful Detainer,
Forcible Entry and claims for money not exceeding 200,000.
Small Claims involve claims for money that do not go beyond 100,000.
There are also cases that follow Summary Procedure even though cognizable by RTC. And these cases are
those that are mentioned in the Family Code.
The only pleadings allowed in Summary Procedure are complaint, answer, compulsory counterclaim and
crossclaim. So permissive counterclaim is not allowed. A defendant that has permissive counterclaim must file
pleadings. There are only two responsive pleadings: reply and answer. But it does not mean to say that the
defendant cannot make use of claim pleadings like a counterclaim, crossclaim or third party complaint. Even if
there is a classification of these pleadings, there is no prohibition on the part of the defendant to make use of
these pleadings. If defendant files answer and he thinks he has claims against plaintiff, he may file answer with
counterclaim. He may also file a crossclaim against co-defendant.
In Rule 7, the classification of pleadings into initiatory and non-initiatory pleadings is necessary for the
purposes of determining whether or not the party must accompany his pleading with certification of non-forum
shopping. In initiatory pleadings, it is necessary that there is such certification. Without which, the complaint
may be dismissed, with prejudice or without prejudice. Also, the classification is necessary to enable the court
and the parties to know whether there is a need to pay for docket fees since in initiatory pleadings, payment of
docket fees is necessary. If an initiatory pleading is filed without payment of docket fees, the court does not
acquire jurisdiction over these pleadings.
With respect to a compulsory counterclaim, it is not considered by the court as an initiatory pleading for
the purposes of payment of docket fees. If defendant files answer with permissive counterclaim, and he does not
pay, and the court has neglected to collect the payment and has tried the case, and in such decision the relief
prayed for in the permissive counterclaim is granted by the court, the decision in that counterclaim is void for
lack of jurisdiction over that counterclaim. As such it can be subject of collateral attack.
With respect to a complaint, what the Rules require to be alleged are only ultimate facts. This rule is not
followed in certain cases, like when the case is governed by Summary Procedure since in such procedure, it is
necessary that the complaint is accompanied by evidence that the plaintiff decides to submit to the court. Also
the circular on Kalikasan, the complaint must be accompanied by evidentiary facts(testimony, documentary).
A counterclaim is a pleading filed by defendant against the plaintiff. There are two
kinds: permissive and compulsory. The Rules made a distinction between a compulsory counterclaim filed
before RTC and that filed before an inferior court. The requisites are the same. But we are concerned with the
other qualification. A counterclaim may be a compulsory counterclaim if filed with RTC but not a compulsory
counterclaim anymore if filed with inferior courts simply because there is an amount alleged in that
counterclaim. The usual example of compulsory counterclaim usually alleged in the answer is that the filing of
the complaint is unjust and without basis and therefore the defendant has been compelled to avail the services
of a lawyer and forced to pay attorneys fees and because of the unjust filing of the complaint, he suffered
damages in the amount of example, 200,000. If that is the tenor of a compulsory counterclaim filed by the
defendant in RTC, it is still treated as compulsory counterclaim by RTC even if the amount is only 200,000 which
is below the jurisdictional amount. If there is a complaint for the recovery of 1 Million and the defendant alleges
compulsory counterclaim where the amount is 200,000,
challenge the jurisdiction of RTC simply because the amount is below 400,000. But if the complaint is filed before
an inferior court and the amount sought is only 300,000 but the defendant sets up what he calls a compulsory
counterclaim in the amount of 600,000. Under the Rules, that counterclaim, although it arises or connected with
the subject of the complaint, is treated as permissive counterclaim. Thus the inferior court may order the
dismissal of the counterclaim for being outside of its jurisdiction. If the amount is beyond the authority of
inferior court, the compulsory counterclaim will be treated as permissive counterclaim. But if the court is RTC
and the amount of the compulsory counterclaim is below its jurisdictional amount, it may still hear the case with
respect to counterclaim.
. meaning that is mandatory. If the pleader does not follow any of the
modes in the rules for pleading an actionable document. The sc said the plaintiff will not be allowed to present
proof of his cause of action. if it is the defendant who fails to do so, He will not be allowed to present proof of his
defense. So the attachment of the actionable document or copying the contents of that act doc in the pleading
itself is amust. It will adversely affect the pleader if he does not follow either the modes of pleading an act doc.
Now we go to the third part of the complaint fourth party complaint or fifth party complaint. We follow literally
what the rule say it is third party complaint fourth party complaint etc. meaning to say there is no end To the
number of complaint that can be impleaded, third party complaint fourth party sixth party complaint. As long
as the allegations in these complaint has something to do with the claim of the plaintiff in the complaint . you
will notice that among all these claim pleadings, it is only a third party complaint where their filing requires
prior leave of court. We cannot simply file a third aprty complaint without leave of court. There is a need for
leave of court. And the 3rd party complaint must allege that the 3rd party defendant is liable to the 3rd party
plaintiff. The 3rd party plaintiff is always a defendant. The defendant-3rd party pal is entitled to recover from the
3rd party defendant by reason of contribution,subrogation or any other relief in relation to subject matter of the
claim in the complaint. so the 3rd party complaint is always connected with the subject matter of the complaint.
If the complaint,for instance,is for the recovery of an unpaid loan,the 3rd party complaint cannot pertain to a
recovery of the ownership of a piece of land. If the subject of a3rd party complaint should always be related to
the subject matter of that complaint. Why do we need permission from the court before the defendant can file a
3rd party complaint? Because the 3rd party complaint will forcibly bring into the action a stranger to the case. The
3rd party defendant is not at present a litigant to the case. It is a stranger to the case. That is why the rules require
that the court should be given discretion whether to allow or not to allow the 3rd party complaint because there
may be no need at all in bringing a stranger to the case or even if there be aneed the claim against the stranger is
unrelated or unconnected to the subject matter of the complaint. If the court denies the motion for the admission
INDISPENSABLE PARTY to the case, the court should require that defendant1 be
proceedings taken by the court could be void. So it is useless for the court to try the case. Under the new
With respect to the preceding section there's not much discuss except that in the periods for replevin or period
for the filing or issuing notice that there is nothing mentioned at all about the period as to when a complaint
may be filed the periods begin with the period to file a responsive pleading but nothing speaks in the rules as to
when a complaint should be filed. The reason is because the filing of a complaint is solely dependent upon the
claim of the plaintiff. We can't force him to file a complaint. It's not possible for the Supreme Court to tell the
plaintiff you should file this complaint within this particular period. If the SC does so the SC will be invading
the turf of substantive law. The filing of a complaint is dependent solely on the decision of the plaintiff and if
there is ever a period fixed as to when that complaint should be filed it will not be determined by the SC it will
have to be determined by substantive law. A complaint must be filed so that it can be prosecuted successfully as
long as the claim has not prescribed. Prescription is a matter of substantive law. Thats why in the rules it begin
with the period of when to file an answer but with respect to the other claim pleadings a cross claim,
counterclaim a third party complaint there is a period fixed now in the rules. With respect to a cross claim and a
compulsory counterclaim they must be filed within the period fixed for the filing of an answer because even if a
crossclaim a counterclaim or third party complaint are claim pleadings the rules do not allow the defending
party to file an answer separately from a counterclaim or a crossclaim or a third party complaint. These 3
pleadings must always be added or incorporated in the answer. So if defendant has claims against the plaintiff
or against 3rd persons who are not litigants he should file an answer with a counterclaim an answer with a
crossclaim or an answer with a third party complaint. The trial court will not allow the defendant to file an
answer today and then next week the defendant will file a compulsory counterclaim or even a permissive
Is there a difference between the motion filed by the plaintiff than a notice of
dismissal? There is a big difference. If the plaintiff files a motion, that means to say that the court is given the
prerogative to grant or deny. But if simply a notice, the court is left without any discretion except to confer. That
dismissal is without prejudice unless the plaintiff tells the court that the notice should be considered as an
adjudication upon the merits.
If the dismissal of the complaint is confirmed by the court and he receives the notice of confirmation and the
plaintiff again change his mind, can he file another complaint? NO. because the confirmation of the dismissal
will be entered only after the lapse of fifteen days. Within the 15 day period, the plaintiff can change his mind.
He will just ask the court to revive his complaint, he does not need to file another complaint. no need to pay
another set of docket fees.
Supposing that the defendant files a motion to dismiss under rule 16, and subsequently the plaintiff files a notice
of dismissal, which of the two submission should be resolved by the court? This issue was resolved by the SC,
what the court should do is to confirm the notice of dismissal by the plaintiff.
Section 1 also give a concept of two dismissal rule. The creditor files a complaint against the debtor for the
recovery of an obligation for P500,000. A week after the filing of the complaint, and upon receipt of the
Before we push through with the discussion on appeal, I suggest that you should first familiarize yourselves
with some terms that are relevant to appeal which are usually found in the decisions of the Supreme Court
resolving propriety or impropriety of appeals. The first of course is a final order compared to an interlocutory
order. You know the concept of these. Another one is the question of fact compared to question of law. The third
would be the material data rule in appeals. And then we have improper appeal and erroneous appeal, a
Rule 39 is described by the decisions of Supreme Court as the rule that which gives life to the law. It gives
life to the law in a sense that the winning party will be able to recover the award given in his favor through the
use of Rule 39. So if the civil case is for the recovery of money and the court awards let us say 2 million in favor
of the judgment creditor, the creditor of course will not be satisfied unless the 2 million is delivered to him. It is
not correct to assume that in order to satisfy the judgment we should always make use Rule 39. Satisfaction of
judgment as conceived in Rule 39 is a forcible satisfaction of judgment. So if the award in favor of the judgment
creditor is for the payment by the judgment debtor of 2 million pesos, the judgment creditor does not even have
to think about Rule 39 as long as he receives 2 million pesos from the judgment debtor. In other words, the
judgment debtor can voluntarily pay 2 million pesos to the creditor. It is only in that situation where the
judgment debtor refuses to pay where the only remedy of the judgment creditor to enforce payment is to make
use of Rule 39, that is to force the debtor to pay 2 million pesos by making a levy on his properties and by selling
this levied properties at public auction. That is the function of Rule 39 that is a forcible satisfaction of a final and
executory judgment. In the ordinary course of things, if there is an appeal from the decision rendered by the trial
court and it has reached the Supreme Court even if the decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and
the decision of the Supreme Court has been entered, it is not correct for the judgment creditor to ask for
execution from the Supreme Court. The matter of execution is a duty of the court of origin, if it is the inferior
court that originated the case it is the inferior court that will have the duty to enforce satisfaction of the claim.
The higher courts usually do not issue an order for the execution of judgment. What the lawyer for the judgment
creditor should do is to wait for the records to be returned to the court of origin. It could take time before the
records simply return to the court of origin. So if the records have not yet been received by the inferior court and
the judgment creditor files a motion for execution there is likelihood that the inferior court will tell him we have
not yet received the record so we cannot act on your motion although the issuance of execution, the granting the
motion for execution is already a ministerial duty of the court. Rule 39 has provided for the remedy in this
situation. If there is an appeal that has reached the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals as the case may be, the
appellate court will simply issue a certified true copy of the entry of judgment and that certified true copy will
be submitted immediately to the court of origin that could be the basis of the granting of a motion for execution
that is enough proof that there is really a final and executory judgment. Is there a need for the judgment creditor
to file a motion for execution? Of course there is always a need, if the judgment creditor does not file a motion
for execution the court has no business issuing a writ of execution because the court will not know whether
there has been voluntary satisfaction of the judgment so there has to be a motion for execution filed by the
judgment creditor. Since the judgment has become final and executory and it is now the ministerial duty of the
court to grant the motion and to issue a writ of execution, can the motion for execution can be heard ex parte?
This is without notifying the judgment debtor, without giving him a copy even with the motion. This issue
which is the subject of conflicting decisions of the Court the latest that I know of says that a motion for execution
We continue with rule 39, we talked about terceria-third party claim. The rule on terceria in rule 39 is also
contained in rule 57 in relation to writ of preliminary attachment. The principles in rule 39 and 57 governing
third party claim are practically identical. Terceria is predicated on the premise that the property levied upon by
the sheriff for purpose of executing the duly entered judgment does not belong to the judgment debtor. In rule
39 for the validity of a levy, the property levied upon must belong to the judgment debtor. If the property levied
upon belongs to another person, the levy is not valid. If the sheriff sells the property, nonetheless, the sale is not
valid. Rule 39 expects that the properties levied upon and eventually sold all belong to the judgment debtor
because rule 39 is the satisfaction of judgment against the judgment debtor. If the sheriff makes a levy on
properties which does not belong to the judgment debtor, you can expect the true owner to complain- he can
SIMILAR REMEDIES encompasses three special civil actions enumerated in the Rules: 1. Reformation of
Instrument; 2.Quieting of Title and; 3. Consolidation of Title under 1607 of the Civil Code. Although they are
contained in the same Rule, they are governed by different rules, by different procedures. So the procedure in
declaratory relief is different from the procedure in the other similar relief. The requirements of declaratory
relief are not the requirements of other similar remedies.
With respect to DECLARATORY RELEIF, the obvious nature of declaratory relief which makes it a special civil
action is that the petition must be filed must be filed before a breach or violation is committed. In other
words, if we are going to apply the principles governing ordinary civil actions, petition for declaratory relief will
be dismissed outright; because at the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner does not have a cause of
action. There is no allegation in the petition for declaratory relief that there is a right that has been violated by
the act or omission of another. If there is an allegation, the petition ceases to be a declaratory relief. It becomes an
ordinary civil action. In short, a petition for declaratory relief is a preventive mechanism in order to prevent
contracting parties from getting involved later on in an ordinary civil action which could be tedious. Because, in
declaratory relief, the petitioner does not allege that he has a right or even if he has a right, it has not been
violated. And therefore, having no cause of action, the only relief which the petitioner seeks from the Court is
for the Court to determine what his rights are under a written instrument, deed or contract. The petitioner is not
absolutely certain if he has rights under a certain deed or instrument; and he is asking the Court to declare what
his rights are. So after the Court has declared what his rights are, that is the end. So we cannot have a petition
for declaratory relief with a prayer for damages. A prayer for damages in a declaratory relief will defeat the
nature of declaratory relief. Damages are awarded by the Court if there is already a breach of a right belonging
to the plaintiff.
You will notice that there is an enumeration in 63 about the instruments which can be subject of declaratory
relief; deed, will, contract, statute or an ordinance. With respect to statute or ordinance, the same principle
applies. So we cannot file a petition for declaratory relief involving a statute or ordinance if there has been a
violation of the statute or ordinance. So before the effectivity of the statute or ordinance, the usual prayer for a
petition for declaratory relief is to declare the statute or ordinance void or unconstitutional. So, you will notice in
some instances after the Congress enacted law, and the President has signed it into law, there is always a date of
effectivity given to that statute. If somebody wants to challenge the validity or constitutionality of that statute,
he must do so before the law takes effect and before the violation and before a violation of the law is committed,
solely for the purpose of determining if the statute or ordinance is unconstitutional or constitutional. So you will
meet decisions of the Court in certain declaratory relief to the effect that we cannot file a motion for execution in
order to carry out the declaratory judgment. The judgment in declaratory relief is usually called a
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in order to differentiate it from what the Court usually renders after a judgment