SCA Reviewer 1718

Chua | Clemente | De Guia | Del Rosario | Penafiel | Santos 1718
SPECIAL CIVIL Initiated by Petition
ACTIONS
1. Declaratory Relief [R63]
2. Review of Judgments and Final Orders of COA and COMELEC [R64]
3. Certiorari [R65]
[ALCUDyeah!]
4. Prohibition [R65]
5. Mandamus [R65]
6. Quo Warranto [R66]
7. Contempt [R71]
I. General Provisions
II. Interpleader [62]
Special Civil Actions and Ordinary Interpleader, defined
Civil Actions, distinguished Interpleader is a remedy whereby a person who has property in his
possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially, without claiming
Although both are governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions, there are any right in both, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim said
certain rules that are applicable only to special civil actions [R1,S3(a)]. The property or who consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with
fact that an action is subject to special rules other than those applicable to obligation, be required to litigate among themselves.
ordinary civil actions is what makes a special civil action.

Pagkalinawan v Rodas, G.R. no. 1806
Special Civil Actions Ordinary Civil Actions
Petitioner Pagkalinawan filed an interpleader suit against Manuel
Tambunting and Angel de Leon Ong, praying that the latter two be ordered to
not all special civil actions are must always be based on a cause
litigate their conflicting claims to the rentals due from Pagkalinawan. There
based on a cause of action [R2,S2] of action [R 1,S2]
is really a conflicting claim between Angel de Leon Ong and respondent
➔ In interpleader,
Manuel Tambunting is evidenced by the fact that there are pending in the
plaintiff may file
Court of First Instance of Manila civil case No. 815, between Manuel
complaint even if he
Tambunting and Angel de Leon Ong and Ong Hoa for the annulment of a
has not sustained
contract of sale involving the premises in question, and civil case No. 2690,
actual transgression
between Angel de Leon Ong, and Manuel Tambunting for the ejectment of
Tambunting from the property located at Nos. 329 to 339 Tanduay Street,
There are some special civil may be filed in either MTC or RTC
Manila, which includes the premises held by the petitioners Pagkalinawan.
actions which can only be depending on jurisdictional
Under the law, the latter have a right to file the interpleader suit in view of
commenced in MTC and which amount or nature of the action
the claim for rentals of Angel de Leon Ong.
cannot be commenced in MTC involved
Venue is determined by either the Beltran v PHHC, G.R. no. 25138

residences of the parties where Rule 63, section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court requires as an indispensable
the action is personal or location element that "conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may
of property where action is real be made" against the plaintiff-in-interpleader "who claims no interest
whatever in the subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not
When filed, some are When fled, denominated as disputed by the claimants." While the two defendant corporations may have
denominated as “petition” “complaint” conflicting claims between themselves with regard to the management,
administration and ownership of Project 4, such conflicting claims are not
Institution of Special Civil Actions against the plaintiffs nor do they involve or affect the plaintiffs. Thus, they
may not be properly compelled in an interpleaders uit to interplead and
litigate among themselves.
Initiation by Complaint
1. Interpleader [R62] Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club v Won, G.R. no. 23851
2. Partition [R69]
The action of interpleader, under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure
3. Expropriation [R67]
(old Code), is a remedy whereby a person who has personal property in his
4. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage [R68]
possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially, without claiming
5. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer [R70]
any right to either, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the
1
I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. -Philippians 4:13

said personal property or who consider themselves entitled to demand to court and asks that the persons who claim the said property or who
compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate among themselves in consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with the obligation, be
order to determine finally who is entitled to tone or the one thing. The required to litigate among themselves, in order to determine finally who is
remedy is afforded to protect a person not against double liability but entitled to one or the other thing.
against double vexation in respect of one liability.
The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against a double liability but
Also, before a person will be deemed to be in a position to ask for an order of to protect him against a double vexation in respect of one liability. When the
interpleader, he must be prepared to show, among other prerequisites, that court orders that the claimants litigate among themselves, there arises in
he has not become independently liable to any of the claimants. reality a new action and the former are styled interpleaders, and in such a
case the pleading which initiates the action is called a complaint of
Lastly, if a stakeholder defends a suit filed by one of the adverse claimants interpleader and not a cross-complaint.
and allows said suit to proceed to final judgment against him, he cannot
later on have that part of the litigation repeated in an interpleader suit. In Lui Enterprises v Zuellig Pharma, G.R. no. 193494
the case at hand, the Corporation allowed civil case 26044 to proceed to
final judgment. And it offered no satisfactory explanation for its failure to An interpleader complaint may be filed by a lessee against those who have
implead Tan in the same litigation. In this factual situation, it is clear that conflicting claims over the rent due for the property leased.
this interpleader suit cannot prosper because it was filed much too late.
Purpose of an Interpleader complaint: For the lessee to protect him or her
from “double vexation in respect of one liability.” He or she may file the
Mesina v IAC, G.R. no. 70145 interpleader case to extinguish his or her obligation to pay rent, remove him
In this case, Associated Bank was unsure of what to do with respect to the or her from the adverse claimants’ dispute, and compel the parties with
check being claimed by two conflicting parties, i.e. John Go and John Doe conflicting claims to litigate among themselves.
(Marcelo Mesina). Thus, the bank filed an action for Interpleader naming
John Go, and one John Doe as respondents. Considering the aforementioned
facts and circumstances, respondent bank merely took the necessary When Interpleader is Proper
precaution not to make a mistake as to whom to pay and therefore
interpleader was its proper remedy. It has been shown that the interpleader Section 1, Rule 62. Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject
suit was filed by respondent bank because petitioner and Jose Go were both matter are or may be made against a person who claims no interest
laying their claims on the check, petitioner asking payment thereon and whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is
Jose Go as the purchaser or owner. not disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the
conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their
RCBC v Metro Container Corp, G.R. no. 127913 several claims among themselves.
METROCAN filed the interpleader action because it was unsure which
between LEYCON and RCBC was entitled to receive the payment of monthly
rentals on the subject property. LEYCON was claiming payment of the Jurisdiction and Venue
rentals as lessor of the property while RCBC was making a demand by virtue
of the consolidation of the title of the property in its name.

Jurisdiction for Real Property [BP 129]
However, the reason for the interpleader action ceased when the MeTC
RTC assessed value exceeding 2,000 outside MM or
rendered judgment in a different civil case, i.e. unlawful detainer case,
5,000 inside MM
whereby the court directed METROCAN to pay LEYCON whatever rentals due
on the subject premises. RCBC cannot be bound for not being a party; while,
MTC assessed value does not exceed 2,000 outside MM
METROCAN has no other alternative but to pay the rentals to LEYCON. Thus,
or 5,000 inside MM
the unlawful detainer case resolved the conflicting claims on the payment
of rentals. RCBC can resort to other legal remedies to prove its claim.
Jurisdiction for Personal Property [BP 129]
Ocampo v Tirona, G.R. no. 147812
RTC value of property exceeding 300,000 outside MM or
Tirona rightfully filed an action for interpleader, being the lessee who does
400,000 inside MM
not know the person to whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the
property.
MTC value of property does not exceed 300,000 outside

MM or 400,000 inside MM
The action of interpleader is a remedy whereby a person who has property
whether personal or real, in his possession, or an obligation to render
wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both, or claims an interest
which in whole or in part is not disputed by the conflicting claimants, comes
2


Venue [Rule 4, Rules of Court] The parties in an interpleader action may file counterclaims,
cross-claims, third-party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto,
Section 1, Rule 4. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or as provided by these Rules.
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein
the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Determination
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
Section 6, Rule 62. After the pleadings of the conflicting claimants have
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
been filed, and pre-trial has been conducted in accordance with the
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Rules, the court shall proceed to determine their respective rights and
adjudicate their several claims.
Section 2, Rule 4. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants Docket, Lawful fees as Liens
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff. Section 7, Rule 62. The docket and other lawful fees paid by the party
who filed a complaint under this Rule, as well as the costs and litigation
expenses, shall constitute a lien or change upon the subject matter of
Order and Issuance of Summons the action, unless the court shall order otherwise.
III. Declaratory Relief &

Section 2, Rule 62. Order. — Upon the filing of the complaint, the court
shall issue an order requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead
with one another. If the interests of justice so require, the court may
direct in such order that the subject matter be paid or delivered to the
court. Other Remedies [R63]

Section 3, Rule 62. Summons. — Summons shall be served upon the Declaratory Relief, defined
conflicting claimants, together with a copy of the complaint and order.
Declaratory Relief is an action by any person interested under a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a
Motion to Dismiss statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental
regulation to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and
for a declaration of his rights or duties. .
Section 4, Rule 62. Within the time for filing an answer, each claimant
may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of impropriety of the
interpleader action or on other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16. Ferrer v Roco, G.R. no. 174129
The period to file the answer shall be tolled and if the motion is denied, Definition
the movant may file his answer within the remaining period, but which Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed,
shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to
denial. determine any question of construction or validity arising from the
instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of
Answer/E ect of Failure to File

his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such a
petition is the question of construction or validity of the provisions in an
Answer instrument or statute.

Requisites of Declaratory Relief
Section 5, Rule 62. Each claimant shall file his answer setting forth his 1] The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or
claim within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons upon him, other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or
serving a copy thereof upon each of the other conflicting claimants who ordinance;
may file their reply thereto as provided by these Rules. If any claimant 2] The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and
fails to plead within the time herein fixed, the court may, on motion, require judicial construction;
declare him in default and thereafter render judgment barring him from 3] There must have been no breach of the documents in question;
any claim in respect to the subject matter.
3

4] There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of The SJS Petition stated no ultimate facts. SJS merely speculated or
one between persons whose interests are adverse; anticipated without factual moorings that, as religious leaders, the
5] The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and petitioner and his co-respondents below had endorsed or threatened to
6] Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of endorse a candidate or candidates for elective offices. Such speculations do
action or proceeding. not suffice to constitute justiciable controversy nor does it give rise to an
actionable right.
In relation to this case, if a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, The failure of a complaint to state a cause of action is a ground for its
relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort outright dismissal. However, in special civil actions for declaratory relief,
to the courts is had, even if the matter may well be within their proper the concept of a cause of action under ordinary civil actions does not strictly
jurisdiction. Issue is not ripe of judicial determination when matter is apply. The reason for this exception is that an action for declaratory relief
within the primary jurisdiction of an administrative agency. presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments
involved or of rights arising thereunder. Nevertheless, a breach or violation
should be impending, imminent or at least threatened.
Purpose of An Action for
Declaratory Relief
A perusal of the Petition filed by SJS before the RTC discloses no explicit
allegation that the former had any legal right in its favor that it sought to
protect.
The purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed
or contract for their guidance in the enforcement or compliance and not to Commissioner of Customs v Hypermix, G.R. no. 179579
settle issues arising from the alleged breach. The issue raised by respondent is ripe for judicial determination because
litigation is inevitable for the reason that respondent is not included in the
Martelino v NHMFC, G.R. no. 160208 enumeration of flour millers classified as food grade wheat importers. thus,
it would have to file a protest case each time it imports food grade wheat
In this case, there was already a breach before filing the action for and be subjected to the 7% tariff.
declaratory relief; thus, petition for declaratory relief is not proper. The
breach, particularly, was when respondents already suspended payments.
This suspension ignored petitioner’s right to suspend amortization E ect of Absence of Justiciable Controversy
payments due to Shelter’s failure to complete the subdivision.
Republic v Roque, G.R. no. 204603
Galicto v Aquino, G.R. no. 193978 Private respondents failed to demonstrate how they are left to sustain or
Since the issuance of an EO is not judicial, quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, are in immediate danger to sustain some direct injury as a result of the
a petition for certiorari and prohibition is an incorrect remedy; instead a enforcement of the assailed provisions of RA 9372 (Human Security Act).
petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, filed with They only assert general interests as citizens, and taxpayers and infractions
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper recourse to assail the validity of which the government could prospectively commit if the enforcement of the
EO 7. said law would remain untrammeled. Their fear of prosecution was solely
based on remarks of certain government officials which were addressed to
the general public. They, however, failed to show how these remarks tended
Requisites of An Action for towards any prosecutorial or governmental action geared towards the
implementation of RA 9372 against them. In other words, there was no
Declaratory Relief particular, real or imminent threat to any of them. Without any justiciable
controversy, the petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief over
which the Court has no original jurisdiction.
1. Justiciable Controversy
Also, it cannot be inferred that the controversy at hand is ripe for
Velarde v SJS, G.R. no. 159357 adjudication since the possibility of abuse, based on the above-discussed
allegations in private respondents’ petition, remain highly-speculative and
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is merely theorized. It is well-settled that a question is ripe for adjudication
appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
merely anticipatory. The SJS’ Petition for Declaratory Relief fell short of this individual challenging it. This private respondents failed to demonstrate in
test. It miserably failed to allege an existing controversy or dispute the case at bar.
between the petitioner and the named respondents therein. Further, the
Petition did not sufficiently state what specific legal right of the petitioner
was violated by the respondents and what particular act or acts of the latter Jimenez v Roa, G.R. no. 30496
were in breach of its rights, the law or the Constitution. Since the petition for declaratory relief itself was premised on the
happening of a contingent event – the attestation of his appointment, which
4

as alleged in the petition, was never given and instead, his appointment
was recalled - there was no issue ripe for judicial determination and Quisumbing v Garcia, G.R. no. 175527
petitioner Jimenez had no legal interest entitling him to declaratory relief.
Gov. Garcia’s petition for declaratory relief should have been dismissed
because it was instituted after the COA had already found her in violation of
E ect Where Law or Contract Has Already Been Sec. 22(c) of R.A. No. 7160. One of the important requirements for a petition
Contravened for declaratory relief under Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court is that it be
filed before breach or violation of a deed, will, contract, other written
instrument, statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance or any other
Malana v Tappa, G.R. no. 181303
governmental regulation. In Martelino v. National Home Mortgage Finance
An action to quiet title is one of the three actions considered similar to Corporation, 556 SCRA 663 (2008), we held that the purpose of the action is
declaratory relief because they also result in the adjudication of the legal to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the
rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc., for their guidance in its
judgment into effect. enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising from its alleged
breach. It may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the
In the present case, petitioner’s complaint for quieting of title was filed statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it refers. Where the law or contract has
after petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate the already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory
subject property. In fact, said complaint was filed only subsequent to the relief, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. Under
latter’s express claim of ownership over the subject property before the such circumstances, inasmuch as a cause of action has already accrued in
Lupong Tagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners’ title. favor of one or the other party, there is nothing more for the court to explain
or clarify, short of a judgment or final order.
Since petitioners averred in the complaint that they had already been
deprived of the possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is
the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for 2. Legal Interest in the Controversy
declaratory relief.
Third-party Complaint is Not Proper When Main Case
A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending
controversies that have not reached the state where another relief is
is Declaratory Relief
immediately available; and supplies the need for a form of action that will
set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of obligations, an Commissioner of Customs v Cloribel, G.R. no. 21036
invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs. It is obvious from this definition that a third-party complaint is
inconceivable when the main case is one for nothing more than a
Action for Declaratory Relief After Breach is declaratory relief. In a third-party complaint, the defendant or third-party
Objectionable plaintiff is supposed to seek contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any
other relief from the third-party defendant in respect to the claim of the
plaintiff against him.
Sebastian Sarmiento v Hon. Capapas, G.R. no. 15509
In this case, Sarmiento filed a petition for the issuance of an injunction Issue is Ripe for Judicial Determination
against the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs
to prohibit the latter from releasing the importations and to order them to
institute seizure proceedings. This is on the ground that the the permit Tolentino v Board of Accountancy, 90 Phil 83
issued was in violation of two Republic Acts that only permit importation of Where plaintiff seeks declaratory relief not for his own personal benefit, or
Virginia leaf tobacco in case of insufficiency of home-grown Virginia because his rights or prerogatives as an accountant or as an individual, are
tobacco for local consumption. Sarmiento filed a motion to be permitted to adversely affected, but rather for the benefit of persons belonging to other
file a new petition for declaratory relief in substitution of its original professions or callings, who are not parties in this case; or where plaintiff
petition. This was granted by the lower court. does not claim to have suffered any prejudice or damage to him or to his
rights or prerogatives as an accountant by the use of the disputed trade
Supreme Court held that such grant is erroneous. The institution of an action name by the defendants, who also are certified accountants, the case does
for declaratory relief after a breach of contract or statute is objectionable on not properly come under Rule 66. In order that an action for declaratory
various grounds, one of which is that it violates the rule on multiplicity of relief may be entertained, it must be predicated on the following requisite
suits. If the case at bar were allowed for a declaratory relief, the judgment facts or conditions: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the
therein notwithstanding, another action would still lie against the importer controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the
respondent for violation of the barter law. So, instead of one case only party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
before the courts in which all issues would be decided, two cases will be controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial
allowed, one being the present action for declaratory relief and a determination.
subsequent one for the confiscation of the importations because of the
breach of the barter law.
5

Who May File Petition for When and Where to File Petition for

Declaratory Relief Declaratory Relief
Section 1, Rule 63. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or Malana v Tappa, G.R. no. 181303
other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under
regulation may, before breach or violation thereof bring an action in the a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The
construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and
duties, thereunder. determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial
declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder. Petitions for
declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The RTC
Baguio Citizens Action v City Council and City Mayor of Baguio, correctly made a distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of
G.R. no. 27247 Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.

The non-inclusion of the squatters mentioned in the Ordinance in question
In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
as party defendants in this case cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the Court
1980, as amended, uses the word “shall” and explicitly requires the MTC to
of First Instance of Baguio. There is nothing in Section 2 of Rule 64 of the
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve
Rules of Court which says that the non-joinder of persons who have or claim
title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not
any interest which would be affected by the declaration is a jurisdictional
exceed P20,000.00, thus: Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
defeat. Said section merely states that “All persons shall be made parties
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil
who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration;
Cases.—Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
and no declaration shall, except or otherwise provided in these rules,
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: x x x x (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in
prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the action.” This section
all civil actions which involve title to, possession of, real property, or any
contemplates a situation where there are other persons who would be
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
affected by the declaration, but were not impleaded as necessary parties, in
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil
which case the declaration shall not prejudice them. If at all, the case may
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceeds Fifty
be dismissed not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but for the reason
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
stated in Section 5 of the same Rule stating that “the Court may refuse to
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: x x x.
exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any

case where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy
An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual
which gave rise to the action, or any case where the declaration or
breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder. Since the
construction is not necessary and proper at the time under all
purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative
circumstances.”
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed,

or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance
It must be noted that the reason for the law requiring the joinder of all
therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it
necessary parties is that failure to do so would deprive the declaration of
may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed,
the final and pacifying function the action for declaratory relief is calculated
or contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a
to subserve, as they would not be bound by the declaration and may raise
practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the state
the identical issue. In the case at bar, although it is true that any declaration
where another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for a
by the court would affect the squatters, the latter are not necessary parties
form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a
because the question involved is the power of the Municipal Council to
repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of
enact the Ordinances in question. Whether or not they are impleaded, any
wrongs.
determination of the controversy would be binding upon the squatters.

Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of
It is not true in the instant case. A declaration on the nullity of the
an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction
ordinance, would give the squatters no right which they are entitled to
over the action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an
protect. The party most interested to sustain and defend the legality of the
action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or
Ordinance is the body that passed it, the City Council, and together with the
transgressed before the institution of the action.
City Mayor, is already a party in these proceedings.

Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already been
deprived of the possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is
the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for
declaratory relief. An accion publiciana is a suit for the recovery of
6

possession, filed one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or
from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. An accion
reivindicatoria is a suit that has for its object one’s recovery of possession Similar Remedies
over the real property as owner.
Reformation of Instrument
Parties Bentir v Leanda, G.R. no. 128991
Section 2, Rule 63. All persons who have or claim any interest which The remedy of reformation of an instrument is grounded on the principle of
would be affected by the declaration shall be made parties; and no equity where, in order to express the true intention of the contracting
declaration shall, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, prejudice parties, an instrument already executed is allowed by law to be reformed.
the rights of persons not parties to the action. The right of reformation is necessarily an invasion or limitation of the parol
evidence rule since, when a writing is reformed, the result is that an oral
agreement is by court decree made legally effective. Consequently, the
Notice on the SolGen courts, as the agencies authorized by law to exercise the power to reform an
instrument, must necessarily exercise that power sparingly and with great
Section 3, Rule 63. In any action which involves the validity of a statute, caution and zealous care.
executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the
Solicitor General shall be notified by the party assailing the same and The prescriptive period for actions based upon a written contract and for
shall be entitled to be heard upon such question. reformation of an instrument is ten (10) years under Article 1144 of the Civil
Code.
Validity of Local Ordinances Ramos v CA, 180 SCRA 635

On the issue of prescription, in addition to what has been said, the present
Section 4, Rule 63. In any action involving the validity of a local case, having been filed on February 28, 1960, approximately seven (7) years
government ordinance, the corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the from the execution of the questioned deeds, was seasonably instituted. The
local governmental unit involved shall be similarly notified and entitled prescriptive period for actions based upon a written contract and for
to be heard. If such ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the reformation is ten (10) years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Such right
Solicitor General shall also be notified and entitled to be heard. to reformation is expressly recognized in Article 1365 of the same code.
Same; Same; Purpose of Art. 1602 of the Civil Code.—Article 1602 of the Civil
Code is designed primarily to curtail the evils brought about by contracts of
Conversion into Ordinary Action sale with right of repurchase, such as the circumvention of the law against
usury and pactum commissorium. In the present case before us, to rule
Section 6, Rule 63. If before the final termination of the case, a breach or otherwise would contravene the legislative intent to accord the vendor a
violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or regulation, retro maximum safeguards for the protection of his legal rights under the
ordinance, or any other governmental regulation should take place, the true agreement of the parties.
action may thereupon be converted into an ordinary action, and the
parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or Reformation of Instrument and Annulment of
proper. Contract, distinguished
Quisumbing v Garcia, G.R. no. 175527 Veluz v Veluz, G.R. no. 23261
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE]
ACTION FOR REFORMATION ACTION FOR ANNULMENT
Court Action is Discretionary An action for reformation of

instrument should not be
Annulment of a contract, on the
other hand, presupposes a
confused with an action for defective contract in which the
Section 5, Rule 63. Except in actions falling under the second paragraph
annulment of contract. minds of the parties did not meet,
of section 1 of this Rule, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may
Reformation of instrument or the consent of one was vitiated.
refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe
presupposes a valid existing
instruments in any case where a decision would not terminate the
contract, in which there had been
uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action, or in any case
a meeting of the minds of the
where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under
parties but the instrument drawn
the circumstances.
up and signed by them does not
7

that a written instrument should be the final and inflexible criterion and
correctly express the terms of
measure of the rights and obligations of the contracting parties is thus
their agreement.
tempered, to forestall the effect of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or

accident.
The equity of reformation is Annulment, on the other hand, is

ordinarily limited to written intended to declare the
In order that an action for reformation of instrument as provided in Article
agreements, and its purpose is to inefficiency which the contract
1359 of the Civil Code may prosper, the following requisites must concur:
establish and perpetuate the true already carries in itself and to
(1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties
agreement; render the contract inefficacious.
to the contract;

(2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the

parties; and
(3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of
When does an action for the reformation of instrument prescribe? Chapter 4, the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
Title II of Book of the Civil Code, which treats of "Reformation of accident.
Instruments" carries no provision regarding the period when the action for
reformation of instrument shall be brought. In two decisions of this Court
we find conflicting pronouncements. In the case of Heirs of Carlota v.
Who may file an Action for Reformation of Instrument
Benares, L-6438, June 30, 1955, this Court said that the action prescribes in Article 1368, NCC. Reformation may be ordered at the instance of either
four years. party or his successors in interest, if the mistake was mutual; otherwise,
upon petition of the injured party, or his heirs and assigns.
However, in the subsequent case of Conde v. Cuenca and Malaga, L-9405,
July 31, 1956, wherein the action was precisely for the reformation of the
instrument of sale to make it conform with the intention of the parties to When Reformation of Instrument is Proper
execute a deed of mortgage under Article 1365 of the Civil Code, this Court
1. There is meeting of the minds but the true intention is not
applied Article 1144 of the Civil Code and held that plaintiff had a period of 10
expressed in the instrument by reason of fraud, mistake or
years within which to bring the action. We believe that the decision in the
accident [Article 1359]
Conde case should prevail, not only because it is of a later date but also
2. Mutual mistake of parties causes failure of instrument to
because the issue decided therein refers to the period of prescription in an
disclose their real agreement [Article 1361]
action for reformation of instruments; whereas, in the Carlota case, the
3. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently in
issue decided refers to the annulment of contracts. The ruling in the Conde
such a way that the instrument does not show their true
case is squarely applicable to the case now before Us because, as in the
intention [Article 1362]
Conde case, the question involved is the reformation of an instrument
4. If one party was mistaken and the other knew that the
which appears to be a deed of absolute sale when the real intention of the
instrument did not state their real agreement but concealed it
parties was to execute a deed of mortgage.
from the former [Article 1363]
5. Through ignorance, lack of skill, negligence, or bad faith on
Requisites of Reformation of Instrument person drafting the instrument, the same does not reflect the
true intention of the parties [Article 1364]
6. If 2 parties agree upon mortgage or pledge of real or personal
Multi-Ventures Capital v Satalwart Management, G.R. no. 157439
property but the instrument states that the property is sold
In order that an action for reformation of instrument may prosper, the absolutely or with right of repurchase [Article 1365]
following requisites must concur:
(1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to
the contract; When Reformation of Instrument not Proper
(2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the 1. If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident has prevented
parties; and a meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is
(3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of annulment of contract [Article 1359]
the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or 2. Simple donations inter vivos where no condition is imposed
accident. 3. Wills
4. When real agreement is void [Article 1366]
NIA v Gamit, G.R. no. 85869 5. When he has already brought an action for enforcement of the
judgment [Article 1367]
Equity orders the reformation of an instrument in order that the true
intention of the contracting parties may be expressed. The courts do not
attempt to make another contract for the parties. The rationale of the
doctrine of reformation is that it would be unjust and inequitable to allow
the enforcement of a written instrument which does not reflect or disclose
the real meeting of the minds of the parties. The rigor of the legalistic rule
8

Article 478, NCC. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a
Quieting of Title cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has
been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive
prescription.
Requisites of Quieting of Title
Eland Philippines v Garcia, G.R. no. 173289 Consolidation of Ownership

This Court deems it necessary to delve briefly on the nature of the action of Article 1607, NCC. In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership
quieting of title as applied in this case. This Court’s ruling in Calacala, et al. in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with the
v. Republic, et al., 464 SCRA 438 (2005) is instructive on this matter, thus: To provisions of article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property
begin with, it bears emphasis that an action for quieting of title is without a judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard.
essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. As we held in
Baricuatro, Jr. vs. CA, 325 SCRA 137 (2000): Regarding the nature of the
action filed before the trial court, quieting of title is a common law remedy Article 1616, NCC. The vendor cannot avail himself of the right of
for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to repurchase without returning to the vendee the price of the sale, and in
title to real property. Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to addition:
secure ‘x x x an adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, (1) The expenses of the contract, and any other legitimate
adverse to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and payments made by reason of the sale;
those claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any danger of (2) The necessary and useful expenses made on the thing
hostile claim.’ In an action for quieting of title, the competent court is sold.
tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other
claimants, ‘x x x not only to place things in their proper place, to make the
one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, Cruz v Leis, G.R. no. 125233
but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every As gleaned from the foregoing discussion, despite the Court of Appeals’
cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards finding and conclusion that Gertrude’s as well as private respondents failed
without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to to repurchase the property within the period stipulated and has lost all their
abuse the property as he deems best xxx. rights to it, it still ruled against petitioners by affirming the Regional Trial
Court’s decision on the premise that there was no compliance with Article
Verily, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2) indispensable 1607 of the Civil Code requiring a judicial hearing before registration of the
requisites must concur, namely: property in the name of petitioners. This provision states: ART. 1607. In case
(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of
to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and the failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of Article 1616 shall
(2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, after the
casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or vendor has been duly heard. The aforequoted article is intended to minimize
inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or the evils which the pacto de retro sale has caused in the hands of usurers. A
legal efficacy. judicial order is necessary in order to determine the true nature of the
transaction and to prevent the interposition of buyers in good faith while
When Quieting of Title is Proper the determination is being made.

Article 476, NCC. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any It bears stressing that notwithstanding Article 1607, the recording in the
interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, Registry of Property of the consolidation of ownership of the vendee is not a
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is condition sine qua non to the transfer of ownership. Petitioners are the
in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and owners of the subject property since neither Gertrudes nor her co-owners
may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such redeemed the same within the one-year period stipulated in the
cloud or to quiet the title. “Kasunduan.” The essence of a pacto de retro sale is that title and
ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon retro, subject to the resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor a retro
title to real property or any interest therein. within the stipulated period. Failure thus of the vendor a retro to perform
said resolutory condition vests upon the vendee by operation of law
absolute title and ownership over the property sold. As title is already
Article 477, NCC. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or vested in the vendee a retro, his failure to consolidate his title under Article
interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He 1607 of the Civil Code does not impair such title or ownership for the method
need not be in possession of said property. prescribed thereunder is merely for the purpose of registering the
consolidated title.

9

Rural Bank of Oroquieta v CA, G.R. no. 53466

[sorry we couldn’t find the doctrine pertinent to the topic] IV. Review of Judgments
Remedy from Adverse Ruling and Final Orders or
Commissioner of Customs v Hypermix, G.R. no. 179579
Resolutions of the
[sorry we couldn’t find the doctrine pertinent to the topic] COMELEC and COA [R64]
E ect of Failure to Raise Issues Scope of Rule 64
Before TC
Section 1, Rule 64. This Rule shall govern the review of judgments and
final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the
Pineda v Heirs of Eliseo Guevarra, G.R. no. 143188 Commission on Audit.
Petitioner Pineda had ample opportunity to raise before the Court of Appeals
the objection on the improper mode of appeal taken by the heirs of Guevara.
This, he failed to do. The issue of improper appeal was raised only in Mode of Review
Pineda’s motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ Decision.
Hence, this Court cannot now, for the first time on appeal, pass upon this Section 2, Rule 64. A judgment or final order or resolution of the
issue. For an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. In any case, Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought
the appeal by the heirs of Guevara also raised the issue regarding the by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65,
existence of laches on the part of petitioners as defendants, which is except as hereinafter provided.
factual in nature as discussed below.
Martelino v NHMFC, G.R. no. 160208 Constitutional Basis

[This is a repeated case] In this case, it is not proper for the Court to order Section 7, Article IX, 1987 Constitution. Each Commission shall decide by
the conversion of the petition for declaratory relief to an ordinary civil a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it
action. Although Section 6, Rule 63 might allow such course of action, the within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
respondents did not argue the point, and we note petitioners' failure to resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
specify the ordinary action they desired. We also cannot reasonably assume resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum
that they now seek annulment of the mortgages. required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself.
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
Further, the records support the Court of Appeals' finding that this issue was order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
not raised before the RTC. The Court of Appeals therefore properly refused to Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt
entertain the issue as it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, of a copy thereof.
the petition was denied.
Review of COMELEC Rulings by the Supreme

Court En Banc
Ambil v COMELEC, 398 Phil 257 (2000)

The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory
order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.

The mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the Comelec en banc may
be elevated to the Supreme Court is by the special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, now expressly provided in
Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended Rule 65, Section 1, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that there be no appeal, or
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A
10

motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law. file a motion for reconsideration for certification to the COMELEC en banc nor

Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for to elevate the issue to this Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
dismissal of the petition. the Rules of Civil Procedure.

A decision, order or resolution of a division of the Comelec must be Kho v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 124033, 25v September 1997
reviewed by the Comelec en banc via a motion for reconsideration before
the final en banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on In a situation such as this where the Commission in division committed
certiorari. grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in
issuing interlocutory orders relative to an action pending before it and the
controversy did not fall under any of the instances mentioned in Section 2,
Should be final, and not interlocutory, COMELEC order Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the remedy of the aggrieved party
is not to refer the controversy to the Commission en banc as this is not
Cagas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194139, 24 January 2012 permissible under its present rules but to elevate it to this Court via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The governing provision is Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution,
which provides: Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days COMELEC rulings on disqualifications subject
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter
is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
of review under Rule 64
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or
by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, 03 March 2004
by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to Decisions of the COMELEC on disqualification cases may be reviewed by the
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days Supreme Court per Rule 64 in an action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
from receipt of a copy thereof. This provision, although it confers on the Revised Rules of Court; COMELEC’s decision on a disqualification case
Court the power to review any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, involving a presidential candidate could be elevated to, and could well be
limits such power to a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc, taken cognizance of by, the Supreme Court.
and does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the
COMELEC. Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to review on certiorari
an interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a Division of the Velez v. Poe, G.R. No. 161824, 03 March 2004
COMELEC. [See Tecson v. COMELEC]
EXCEPTIONS
Review of COA rulings
Sahali v. COMELEC (First Div), G.R. No. 201796, 15 January 2013
Exceptionally, this Court may take cognizance of a certiorari action directed Reblora v. AFP, G.R. No. 195842, 08 June 2013
against an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC when the
following circumstances are present: Decisions and resolutions of the COA are reviewable by this Court, not via an
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, as is the present petition, but thru a
FIRST, the order was issued without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction special civil action of certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
or with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of Rules of Court. Section 2 of Rule 64, which implements the mandate of
jurisdiction; and Section 7 of Article IX-A of the Constitution, is clear on this: Section 2. Mode
of Review.—A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on
SECOND, under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the subject of the Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved
controversy is a matter which: party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as
1) the COMELEC en banc may not sit and consider or hereinafter provided.
2) a Division is not authorized to act or
3) the members of the Division unanimously vote to refer to the Unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion, simple errors of judgment
COMELEC en banc. committed by the Commission on Audit cannot be reviewed—even by the
Supreme Court.
Repol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161418, 28 April 2004
The 12 January 2004 Order did not dispose of the case completely as there is Filing of Petition
something more to be done. Interlocutory orders merely rule on an
incidental issue and do not terminate or finally dispose of the case as they Section 3, Rule 64. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from
leave something to be done before it is finally decided on the merits. Since notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.
the COMELEC First Division issued the interlocutory Order of 12 January The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or
2004, the same COMELEC First Division should resolve Repol’s motion for final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the
reconsideration of the Order. The remedy of the aggrieved party is neither to
11

may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of
Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the
its legal jurisdiction.
motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the
remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any
event, reckoned from notice of denial.
Docket and other Lawful Fees
E ect of filing of motion for reconsideration Section 4, Rule 64. Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay
to the clerk of court the docket and other lawful fees and deposit the
The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or
amount of P500.00 for costs.
final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the
Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed.
E ect of denial of motion for reconsideration Form and Contents of Petition

Pates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184915, 30 June 2009 Section 5, Rule 64. Form and contents of petition. — The petition shall be
“Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the verified and filed in eighteen (18) legible copies. The petition shall name
rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. Technical the aggrieved party as petitioner and shall join as respondents the
rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These Commission concerned and the person or persons interested in
are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases sustaining the judgment, final order or resolution a quo. The petition
and, thus, effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard shall state the facts with certainty, present clearly the issues involved,
of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of set forth the grounds and brief arguments relied upon for review, and
liberal construction.” pray for judgment annulling or modifying the questioned judgment, final
order or resolution. Findings of fact of the Commission supported by
Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193808, 26 June 2012 substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.

This Court denies the petition for being filed outside the requisite period. The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original
The review by this Court of judgments and final orders of the COMELEC is or certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject
governed specifically by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which states: Sec. 1. thereof, together with certified true copies of such material portions of
Scope. This rule shall govern the review of judgments and final orders or the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant and
resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit. pertinent thereto. The requisite number of copies of the petition shall
contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original copy of
Sec. 2. Mode of review. A judgment or final order or resolution of the said petition.
Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by
the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was
as hereinafter provided. The exception referred to in Section 2 of this Rule filed within the period fixed herein, and shall contain a sworn
refers precisely to the immediately succeeding provision, Section 3 thereof, certification against forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph
which provides for the allowable period within which to file petitions for of section 3, Rule 46.
certiorari from judgments of both the COMELEC and the Commission on
Audit. Thus, while Rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari as the The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of service of a copy
general rule in Rule 65, they cannot be equated, as they provide for different thereof on the Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of
reglementary periods. Rule 65 provides for a period of 60 days from notice the timely payment of docket and other lawful fees.
of judgment sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court, while Section 3
expressly provides for only 30 days. The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Exceptions due to Compelling Reasons
Section 7, Rule 64. Comments of respondents. — The comments of the
Osmena v. COA, G.R. No. 188818, 31 May 2011 respondents shall be filed in eighteen (18) legible copies. The original
From time to time, however, we have recognized exceptions to the Rules but shall be accompanied by certified true copies of such material portions
only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the of the record as are referred to therein together with other supporting
Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. Every plea for a papers. The requisite number of copies of the comments shall contain
liberal construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an plain copies of all documents attached to the original and a copy thereof
explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply with the Rules and by shall be served on the petitioner.
a justification for the requested liberal construction. Where strong
considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, this Court
12

No other pleading may be filed by any party unless required or allowed
by the Court. Rule on E-filing
E ect of Failure to comply with formal requirements
Rule on E cient Use of Paper The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
One original (properly marked) and four copies,
unless the case is referred to the Court en Banc, in

which event, the parties shall file ten additional
copies.
Action of SC on the Petition

For the En Banc, the parties need to submit only two Section 6, Rule 64. Order to comment. — If the Supreme Court finds the
sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an petition sufficient in form and substance, it shall order the respondents
extra copy. to file their comments on the petition within ten (10) days from notice
thereof; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the petition outright. The Court
SUPREME COURT For the Division, the parties need to submit also may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for delay or the
sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
extra copy. All members of the Court shall share the
E ect of Filing
extra copies of annexes in interest of economy of
paper.

Parties to cases before the SC are further required, Section 8, Rule 64. The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the
on voluntary basis for the first six months following execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily reviewed, unless the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such
afterwards unless the period is extended, to terms as it may deem just.
submit, simultaneously with their court-bound
papers, soft copies of the same and their annexes
(the latter in PDF format) either by email to the Submission for Decision
Court’s e-mail address or by compact disc. This
requirement is in preparation for the eventual Section 9, Rule 64. Unless the Court sets the case for oral argument, or
establishment of an e-filing paperless system in requires the parties to submit memoranda, the case shall be deemed
the judiciary. submitted for decision upon the filing of the comments on the petition,
or of such other pleadings or papers as may be required or allowed, or
COURT OF One original (properly marked) and two copies with the expiration of the period to do so.
APPEALS AND their annexes.
SANDIGANBAYAN
COURT OF TAX
APPEALS
One original (properly marked) and two copies with
annexes. On appeal to the En Banc, one original
V. Certiorari, Prohibition,
(properly marked) and eight copies with annexes;
and Mandamus [R65]
OTHER COURTS In other courts, one original (properly marked) with
the stated annexes attached to it. Petition for Certiorari

*Annexes Served on Adverse Party- A party required by the rules to serve a Certiorari, defined
copy of his court-bound paper on the adverse party need not enclose copies
of those annexes that based on the record of the court such party already
has in his possession. In the event a parts requests a set of the annexes Angeles v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173, 12 March 2012:
actually filed with the court, the party who filed the paper shall comply with Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise
the request within five days from receipt. of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or
personal hostility. The abuse must be in a manner so patent and so gross as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The determination
of grave abuse of discretion as the exception to the general rule of
13

non-interference in the Ombudsman’s exercise of its powers is precisely which is equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient, not merely a remedy
the province of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. However, we highlight which at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the judgment of
the exceptional nature of that determination. the lower court complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy
which would promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of
that judgment and the acts of the inferior court, tribunal, board or officer.
Certiorari and Appeal, distinguished
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION implies such capricious and whimsical
Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368 exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other
words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of
The writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or
passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
cannot be legally used for any other purpose. Its function is only to keep the
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from

committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction
jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged
of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d’etre for the
in the petition and established:
rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so

engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the
(1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising
error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void
(2) such, tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or
of jurisdiction; and
legal soundness of the decision—not the jurisdiction of the court to render
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
said decision—the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for
ordinary course of law.
certiorari.

Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means
The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a
that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding,
On the other hand, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction,
because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general
or the act complained of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or
power in respect of it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or want
agency with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes,
jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a petition
considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules.
means lack of power to exercise authority.

The general rule is that a cert writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal Madrigal Transport v. Lapanday Holding Corp., G.R. No. 156067
is available to the aggrieved party. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of
course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.Hence, the jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not and cannot be a limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.
substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available. Such a
remedy will not be a cure for failure to timely file a petition for review on “Without jurisdiction” means that the court acted with absolute lack of
certiorari under Rule 45. Nor can it be availed of as a substitute for the lost authority.There is “excess of jurisdiction” when the court transcends its
remedy of an ordinary appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was power or acts without any statutory authority. “Grave abuse of discretion”
occasioned by one’s own negligence or error in the choice of remedies. implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be
However, there are cases where the cert writ may still issue even if the equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is
aggrieved party has a remedy of appeal in the ordinary course of law. Thus, exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,
where the exigencies of the case are such that the ordinary methods of prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross
appeal may not prove adequate either in point of promptness or as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to
completeness so that a partial or total failure of justice may result, a cert perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
writ may issue.

The determination as to what exactly constitutes a PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND Appeal Certiorari
ADEQUATE REMEDY rest on judicial discretion and depends on the particular
circumstances of each case. There are many authorities that subscribe to Remedy designed for AS TO Certiorari is a remedy designed
the view that it is the inadequacy, and not the mere absence, of all other the error of law or fact PURPOSE for the correction of errors of
legal remedies, and the danger of a failure of justice without it, that must (mistake of judgment) jurisdiction, not errors of
usually determine the propriety of the writ. An adequate remedy is a remedy judgment. The supervisory
14

jurisdiction of a court over the days from notice of

issuance of a writ of certiorari judgment or final
cannot be exercised for the order, or of denial ff
purpose of reviewing the petitioner’s motion for
intrinsic correctness of a new trial or MR.
judgment of the lower court—on
the basis either of the law or the Not required before AS TO Generally required prior to the
facts of the case, or of the appealing a judgment THE filing of petition for certiorari, in
wisdom or legal soundness of or final order. NEED OF order to afford the tribunal an
the decision. Even if the findings MR opportunity to correct the
of the court are incorrect, as alleged errors.
long as it has jurisdiction over

the case, such correction is
Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari
normally beyond the province of
will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal (including petitions for review)
certiorari. Where the error is not
and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence,
one of jurisdiction, but of an
certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s
error of law or fact—a mistake of
own negligence or error in one’s choice of remedy occasioned such loss or
judgment—appeal is the remedy.
lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal
or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available,
-CA exercised its AS TO -The higher court uses its
certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of
appellate jurisdiction MANNER original jurisdiction in
discretion.
and power of review. OF accordance with its power of
FILING control and supervision over
-Thus, a continuation proceedings with the lower Sandoval v. Cailipan, G.R. No. 200727, 04 March 2013
of the original suit. court. It is well-settled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive and not alternative or successive. The simultaneous filing of a
-Original and independent petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of
action that was not part of the the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since one remedy
trial that had resulted in the would necessarily cancel out the other. The existence and availability of the
rendition of judgment. order right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the
complained of. requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that there should be no
appeal.
Only judgment or final AS TO May be directed against an
order. SUBJECT interlocutory order of the lower
MATTER court prior to an appeal from the Certiorari in Rule 65 and 64, distinguished
judgment; or when there is no
appeal or any plain, speedy, Perez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184915
adequate remedy.
ATTY. ALCUDIA: for elections; for urgency
15 days from the notice AS TO Not later than 60 days from
of judgment or final PERIOD notice of judgment, order, or Grounds
order appealed from. OF resolution.
FILING
Where the record of If a motion for new trial or MR is Grave abuse of discretion
appeal is required, timely filed, the period shall be
within 30 days from counted from the denial of the Roquero v. Chancellor of UP Manila, G.R. No. 181851
notice of motion.
judgment/final order. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words, where
Petition for review, 15 the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
days from notice of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross
denial of decision or as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
petitioner’s motion for perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
new trial or MR.

Appeal by Certiorari, 15
15

Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207 Against what directed

A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy in assailing that
a judge has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court clearly sets
Interlocutory order vs final judgment
forth when a petition for certiorari can be used as a proper remedy.
Heirs of Sps. Reterta v. Sps. Mores, G.R. No. 159941
The term “grave abuse of discretion” has a specific meaning. An act of a
court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion Final Judgment or Order Interlocutory Order
when such act is done in a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” The abuse of discretion must be so A ‘final’ judgment or order is one Conversely, an order that does
patent and gross as to amount to an “evasion of a positive duty or to a that finally disposes of a case, not finally dispose of the case,
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in leaving nothing more to be done by and does not end the Court’s task
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an of adjudicating the parties’
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.” adjudication on the merits which, contentions and determining
on the basis of the evidence their rights and liabilities as
Certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate to strike down an interlocutory order presented at the trial declares regards each other, but obviously
only when the following requisites concur: categorically what the rights and indicates that other things
(1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of obligations of the parties are and remain to be done by the Court, is
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and which party is in the right; or a ‘interlocutory,’ e.g., an order
(2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous judgment or order that dismisses an denying a motion to dismiss
and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and action on the ground, for instance, under Rule 16 of the Rules, or
expeditious relief. of res judicata or prescription. Once granting a motion for extension
rendered, the task of the Court is of time to file a pleading, or
ended, as far as deciding the authorizing amendment thereof,
Without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction controversy or determining the or granting or denying
Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368 rights and liabilities of the litigants applications for postponement,
is concerned. Nothing more remains or production or inspection of
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE] to be done by the Court except to documents or things, etc.
await the parties’ next move (which
among others, may consist of the
Against whom directed filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, or the taking of an
appeal) and ultimately, of course, to
TRIBUNAL, BOARD, OR OFFICER exercising JUDICIAL cause the execution of the
OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION judgment once it becomes ‘final’ or,
to use the established and more
DEFINITION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTION distinctive term, ‘final and
Ruperto v. Torres, G.R. No. L-8785 executory.’
Function where tribunal decides what legal rights are and what law is A final judgment is appealable. May not be questioned on appeal
applied. The use of mental processes for the determination of a fact and law. except only as part of an appeal
that may eventually be taken
DEFINITION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION from the final judgment
United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on
Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, 07 March 2001 Galzote v. Briones, G.R. No. 164682, 14 September 2011
“Quasi-judicial function” is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not
etc. of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under
investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject
draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an
exercise discretion of a judicial nature.” appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and
speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as
discussed above. Thus, a direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari
is an exception rather than the general rule, and is a recourse that must be
firmly grounded on compelling reasons.
16


In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an
Examples of compelling reasons to justify a petition for certiorari:
appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65. (As amended by
(1) interest of a “more enlightened and substantial justice”;
A.M. No. 07-07-12-SC, December 1, 2007).
(2) the promotion of public welfare and public policy;
(3) cases that “have attracted nationwide attention, making it
essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration Error of fact v. error of jurisdiction
thereof”;
(4) or judgments on order attended by grave abuse of discretion.
First Corp. v. Former 6th Div of the CA, G.R. No. 171989
BUT SEE: Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220953, 19 It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is
not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra
July 2016 ordinem—beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial
The special civil action for certiorari is generally not proper to assail such review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the
an interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the availability of parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an
another remedy in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence.
of the Rules of Court expressly provides that “the order denying the motion
for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not
Error of Judgment Interlocutory Order
be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.” It is not an
insuperable obstacle to this action, however, that the denial of the
Any error committed in the An error of jurisdiction is one
demurrers to evidence of the petitioners was an interlocutory order that did
evaluation of evidence is merely where the act complained of was
not terminate the proceedings, and the proper recourse of the demurring
an error of judgment that cannot issued by the court without or in
accused was to go to trial, and that in case of their conviction they may then
be remedied by certiorari. An error excess of jurisdiction, or with
appeal the conviction, and assign the denial as among the errors to be
of judgment is one which the court grave abuse of discretion, which
reviewed. Indeed, it is doctrinal that the situations in which the writ of
may commit in the exercise of its is tantamount to lack or in excess
certiorari may issue should not be limited, because to do so — x x x would be
jurisdiction. of jurisdiction and which error is
to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness. So wide is the discretion
correctible only by the
of the court that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more
extraordinary writ of certiorari.
discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. In the exercise of our
Certiorari will not be issued to
superintending control over other courts, we are to be guided by all the
cure errors of the trial court in its
circumstances of each particular case ‘as the ends of justice may require.’
appreciation of the evidence of
So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a
the parties, or its conclusions
substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.
anchored on the said findings and

its conclusions of law. It is not for
Section 1, Rule 41. Subject of appeal.- An appeal may be taken from a this Court to reexamine
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a conflicting evidence, re-evaluate
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be the credibility of the witnesses or
appealable. substitute the findings of fact of
the court a quo.
No appeal may be taken from:

(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion
NOTE: The proper remedy from an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals is
seeking relief from judgment;
an appeal under Rule 45 and not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by Constitutional Issues
consent, confession, or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake, or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino, G.R. No. 177130, 07 June 2011
(f) A final judgment or final order for or against one or more of Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an
cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main opportunity to correct its assigned errors. This rule, however, is not without
case is pending, unless that court allows an appeal exceptions. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions,
therefrom; and such as:
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo
had no jurisdiction;
17

(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have
been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the
same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of
the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the
action is perishable; action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration
reconsideration would be useless; would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
extreme urgency for relief; extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for due process;
lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte, or in which the petitioner
(h) where the proceedings were ex parte, or in which the had no opportunity to object and
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
interest is involved.

NOTE: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to Motion for reconsideration requirement;
raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify, when exceptions
proper, acts of legislative and executive officials. Thus, even if the petition
was denominated as one for prohibition, it can also be treated as one for
certiorari.
Republic v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, 05 June 2013

Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a
No appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is
remedy in the ordinary course of law to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error
attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances
of the case. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions,
Adequate remedy such as:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo
Conti v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134441, 19 May 1999 has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings
Truly, an essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary
have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or
remedies under the Rules is an absence of an appeal nor any “plain, speedy
are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
and adequate remedy” in the ordinary course of law, one which has been so
court;
defined as a “remedy which (would) equally (be) beneficial, speedy and
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
sufficient, not merely a remedy which at some time in the future will bring
question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of
about a revival of the judgment x x x complained of in the certiorari
the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the
proceeding, but a remedy which will promptly relieve the petitioner from
action is perishable;
the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court or
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for
tribunal” concerned. Illustrative of such a plain, speedy and adequate
reconsideration would be useless;
remedy in the ordinary course of law is a motion for reconsideration that
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
has thus often been considered a condition sine qua non for the grant of
extreme urgency for relief;
certiorari.
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is

urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is
GR: Certiorari will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed
improbable;
before the respondent tribunal.
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for

lack of due process;
EXPNS:
(h) where the proceeding were ex parte or in which the
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo had
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
no jurisdiction;
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public
interest is involved.
18

Certiorari not proper if appeal is available Formal requirements of petition for certiorari
under Rule 65
Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368
Section 1(2), Rule 65. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE]
true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of
all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
Certiorari not a substitute for a lost appeal sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
Banco Filipino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132703
Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lapsed or lost remedy of Section 3(3), Rule 46. It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies
appeal. Banco Filipino’s recourse to a special civil action for certiorari was together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the
borne not out of the conviction that grave abuse of discretion attended the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner,
resolution of its petition before the Court of Appeals but simply because of and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or
its failure to file a timely appeal to this Court. This observation is shared by certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject
the Court of Appeals which was quick to point out that when Banco Filipino thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein,
filed its petition for certiorari assailing the RTC order, the reglementary and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification
period for filing a petition for review before the Court of Appeals had already shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly
lapsed. It is true that this Court may treat a petition for certiorari as having authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal,
been filed under Rule 45 to serve the higher interest of justice, but not when agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The
the petition is filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by
for review and without offering any reason therefor. clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.

No fixed enumeration of instances where certiorari NOTE: Check Rule on Efficient Paper Rule and Rule on E-Filing
will issue; rationale
Verification
Gutib v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131209, 13 August 1999
It has been said that a wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986 10 December 2008
justice in certiorari proceedings. The cases in which certiorari will issue Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations
cannot be defined, because to do so would be to destroy its in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination
comprehensiveness and usefulness. So wide is the discretion of the court or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith; while
that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the
than either prohibition or mandamus. In the exercise of our superintending evils of forum shopping.
control over inferior courts, we are to be guided by all the circumstances of
each particular case “as the ends of justice may require.– So it is that the 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the
writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance
do substantial justice. with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against
forum shopping.
Heirs of Sps. Reterta v. Sps. Mores, G.R. No. 159941, 17 August
2011 2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
Verily, the instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined,
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending
because to do so is to destroy the comprehensiveness and usefulness of
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be
the extraordinary writ. The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more

discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus, and that in the exercise
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has
of superintending control over inferior courts, a superior court is to be
ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or
guided by all the circumstances of each particular case “as the ends of
petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition
justice may require.” Thus, the writ will be granted whenever necessary to
have been made in good faith or585are true and correct.
prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or
a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
19

relax the Rule on the ground of “substantial compliance” or presence of
“special circumstances or compelling reasons.”
E ect of non-compliance with formal
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the requirements
plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
Lapid v. Laurea , G. R. No. 139607, 28 October 2002
common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the As explicitly stated in the aforementioned Rule, failure to comply with any of
signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
substantially complies with the Rule.
But see: Bacolor, et al. v. VL Makabali Memorial Hospital, Inc., et
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the al, G.R. No. 204325
party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special The Court, nevertheless, holds that there are justifiable reasons for the
Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. relaxation of the rules on the filing of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
and that the certificate against forum shopping signed by three out of six
EXCEPTION petitioners suffices. Specifically, petitioners’ cause of action revolves on
the same issue, that is, respondents illegally dismissed them under similar
Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Zaulda, G.R. No. 20134
circumstances. They were all resident physicians who were purportedly 1)
Even assuming that a photocopy of competent evidence of identity was reemployed by the Hospital even after the expiration of their respective one
indeed required, non-attachment thereof would not render the petition year contracts; 2) forced to resign and offered to be reengaged as fixed term
fatally defective. It has been consistently held that verification is merely a employees but declined; 3) demoted; 4) accused of violations of the
formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, affecting merely the form of the Hospital rules and regulations; and 5) dismissed. Moreover, substantial
pleading such that noncompliance therewith does not render the pleading justice dictates that the Petition for Certiorari be given due course and be
fatally defective. It is simply intended to provide an assurance that the resolved on the merits. This is especially so since the findings of the LA are
allegations are true and correct and not a product of the imagination or a contrary to those of the NLRC, particularly on the issues of whether
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court respondents illegally dismissed petitioners and of whether they were
may in fact order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or it afforded due process of law. The requirement of strict compliance with the
may act on the pleading although it may not have been verified, where it is rules on filing of certificate against forum shopping highlights the
made evident that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed so mandatory character of the submission of such certificate. However, this
that the ends of justice may be served. mandatory requirement allows substantial compliance provided that there
are justifiable circumstances for the relaxation of the rules.
Statement of Material Dates
Period within which to file petition
Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, 05 July 2001
Section 4, Rule 65 .When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be
There are three (3) essential dates that must be stated in a petition for
filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or
certiorari brought under Rule 65:
resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely

filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period
First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or Resolution was
shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
received;

Second, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts
Third, when notice of the denial thereof was received. Petitioners failed to
or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person,
show the first and second dates, namely, the date of receipt of the
in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area
impugned NLRC Decision as well as the date of filing of their motion for
as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of
reconsideration.
Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or
in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
Lapid v. Laurea , G. R. No. 139607, 28 October 2002 involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
As stated in Santos vs. Court of Appeals, the requirement is for the purpose otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in
of determining the timeliness of the petition, thus: The requirement of and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is
for the purpose of determining its timeliness. Such a petition is required to No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for
be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.
Resolution sought to be assailed.
20

effort on the part of the litigant invoking liberality to satisfactorily explain
Thenamaris Phils, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. why he or she was unable to abide by the rules.
191215
Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most
In Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., 678 SCRA 738 (2012), we had mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to
the occasion to settle the seeming conflict on various jurisprudence speedily put an end to litigation and the parties’ right to due process.
touching upon the issue of whether the period for filing a petition for
certiorari may be extended. In said case we stated that the general rule, as
laid down in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 594 SCRA 139 BUT SEE: Domdom v. 3rd and 5th Divisions of the
(2009), is that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010
from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for That no mention is made in the above-quoted amended Section 4 of Rule 65
reconsideration. This is in accordance with the amendment introduced by of a motion for extension, unlike in the previous formulation, does not make
A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC where no provision for the filing of a motion for the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited. If such were the intention,
extension to file a petition for certiorari exists, unlike in the original Section the deleted portion could just have simply been reworded to state that “no
4 of Rule 65 which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for extension of time to file the petition shall be granted.” Absent such a
compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. Under exceptional prohibition, motions for extension are allowed, subject to the Court’s sound
cases, however, and as held in Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the discretion. The present petition may thus be allowed, having been filed
Sandiganbayan, 613 SCRA 528 (2010), the 60-day period may be extended within the extension sought and, at all events, given its merits.
subject to the court’s sound discretion. In Domdom, we stated that the
deletion of the provisions in Rule 65 pertaining to extension of time did not
make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited. “If such were the Party Respondents
intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been reworded to state
that ‘no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted.’ Absent such a Section 5 , Rule 65. Respondents and costs in certain cases. — When the
prohibition, motions for extension are allowed, subject to the court’s sound petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court,
discretion.” Then in Labao v. Flores, 634 SCRA 723 (2010), we laid down quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the
some of the exceptions to the strict application of the 60-day period rule, petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such
thus: public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in
(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such
(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own
his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by
(3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of
within a reasonable time from the time of the default; the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not
(4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
(5) the merits of the case; board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is
the party favored by the suspension of the rules; pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or
(7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated
frivolous and dilatory; to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be
(8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in
appellant’s fault; the proceedings therein.
(10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to
each case;
(11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; Jurisdiction
(12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the Section 4(2), Rule 65 .The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or,
attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It
rules. may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of
It is a fundamental rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a
must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended; quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules,
otherwise, the same is of no effect since there would no longer be any the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
period to extend, and the assailed judgment or order will have become final
and executory. Additionally, as cited earlier in Labao, there should be an
21

appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new
Supreme Court trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within
three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.
Section 5(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court shall have
the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 13086
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over All references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to
warranto, and habeas corpus. mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 consequently, all
such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the CA.

Exclusive original jurisdiction over final orders and
resolutions of the CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, COMELEC, Article 66, Labor Code. Appeal to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
COA and the Ombudsman in criminal cases - The decision of the authorized agency of the Department of Labor and
Employment may be appealed by any aggrieved person to the Secretary
of Labor and Employment within five (5) days from receipt of the
Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 149148 05 decision. The decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall be
April 2002 final and executory.
In Tirol, Jr. v. del Rosario,we held that although as a consequence of the
decision in Fabian v. Desierto appeals from the orders, directives, or
Article 121, Labor Code. Powers and functions of the Commission - The
decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are now cognizable by
Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
the Court of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the
1. To act as the national consultative and advisory body to the
Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
President of the Philippines and Congress on matters
excess of jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may
relating to wages, incomes and productivity;
be filed in this Court to set aside the Ombudsman’s order or resolution. In
2. To formulate policies and guidelines on wages, incomes and
Kuizon v. Desierto,we again held that this Court has jurisdiction over
productivity improvement at the enterprise, industry and
petitions for certiorari questioning resolutions or orders of the Office of the
national levels;
Ombudsman in criminal cases.
3. To prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of
appropriate minimum wage and productivity measures at
Court of Appeals the regional, provincial, or industry levels;
4. To review regional wage levels set by the Regional Tripartite
Section 9, BP 129 . The Court of Appeals shall Exercise: Wages and Productivity Boards to determine if these are in
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, accordance with prescribed guidelines and national
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto,and development plans;
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its 5. To undertake studies, researches and surveys necessary for
appellate jurisdiction; the attainment of its functions and objectives, and to collect
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment and compile data and periodically disseminate information
of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and on wages and productivity and other related information,
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, including, but not limited to, employment, cost-of-living,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and labor costs, investments and returns;
quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or 6. To review plans and programs of the Regional Tripartite
commission, including the Securities and Exchange Wages and Productivity Boards to determine whether these
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees are consistent with national development plans;
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service 7. To exercise technical and administrative supervision over
Commission, Except those falling within the appellate the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards;
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the 8. To call, from time to time, a national tripartite conference of
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under representatives of government, workers and employers for
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of the consideration of measures to promote wage
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and rationalization and productivity; and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the 9. To exercise such powers and functions as may be necessary
Judiciary Act of 1948. to implement this Act.

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct The Commission shall be composed of the Secretary of Labor and
hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to Employment as ex-officio chairman, the Director-General of the National
resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) as ex-officio
22

vice-chairman, and two (2) members each from workers’ and employers’
sectors who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon
Rodriguez v. Gadiane, et al., G.R. No. 152903 17 July 2006
recommendation of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to be made In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the
on the basis of the list of nominees submitted by the workers’ and Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave
employers’ sectors, respectively, and who shall serve for a term of five abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other
(5) years. The Executive Director of the Commission shall also be a jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the
member of the Commission. person aggrieved.

The Commission shall be assisted by a Secretariat to be headed by an
Executive Director and two (2) Deputy Directors, who shall be appointed
Sandiganbayan
by the President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the
Section 4(4), PD 1606. The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
Secretary of Labor and Employment.
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus,

prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
The Executive Director shall have the same rank, salary, benefits and
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions
other emoluments as that of a Department Assistant Secretary, while the
of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in
Deputy Directors shall have the same rank, salary, benefits and other
cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
emoluments as that of a Bureau Director. The members of the
14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions
Commission representing labor and management shall have the same
shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
rank, emoluments, allowances and other benefits as those prescribed
by law for labor and management representatives in the Employees’
Compensation Commission. COMELEC Has Appellate Jurisdiction Over
Petitions for Certiorari
Article 236, Labor Code. Denial of registration; appeal - The decision of
the Labor Relations Division in the regional office denying registration Bulilis v. Nunez, G.R. No. 195953, 09 August 2011
may be appealed by the applicant union to the Bureau within ten (10)
Plainly, from the foregoing, this Court recognizes the COMELEC’s appellate
days from receipt of notice thereof.
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against all acts or omissions of
courts in election cases. Indeed, in the recent case of Galang, Jr. v.
Geronimo, 643 SCRA 631 (2011), the Court had the opportunity to rule that a
Article 238, Labor Code. Cancellation of registration; appeal - The
petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a trial court in an
certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization, whether
electoral protest was within the appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
national or local, shall be cancelled by the Bureau if it has reason to
believe, after due hearing, that the said labor organization no longer
meets one or more of the requirements herein prescribed. Galang v. Geronimo, G.R. No. 192793, 22 February 2011
Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC,
[The Bureau upon approval of this Code shall immediately institute which provides when and where a petition for certiorari should be filed,
cancellation proceedings and take such other steps as may be states thus: SEC. 4. When and where to file petition.—The petition shall be
necessary to restructure all existing registered labor organizations in filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment or resolution.
accordance with the objective envisioned above.] (Repealed by In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether
Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986) such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty
(60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. x x x In
election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional
Regional Trial Court trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on
Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Section 21, BP 129. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original
jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, Concurrency of Jurisdiction and Doctrine of
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
which may be enforced in any part of their respective
Hierarchy of Courts
regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public Banez, Jr. v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 159508, 29 August 2012
ministers and consuls. Although the Court, the CA and the RTC have concurrence of jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, the petitioner had no unrestrained freedom to
choose which among the several courts might his petition for certiorari be
filed in. In other words, he must observe the hierarchy of courts, the policy
in relation to which has been explicitly defined in Section 4 of Rule 65
23

concerning the petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, especially if such loss

and mandamus. or lapse was occasioned by one’s own neglect or error in the choice of
remedies.
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of
courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious NOTES: Same as Rule 64. Unless a writ of Preliminary Injunction or a
consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court Temporary Restraining Order is issued, the main case will still continue.
from having to deal with causes that are also well within the competence of Certiorari not a continuation of a case. It is a separate action.
the lower courts, and thus leave time to the Court to deal with the more
fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to De Leon v. Public Estates, G.R. No. 181970, 03 August 2010
it. The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides the general rule that the
serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy. mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation
to a case pending before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the
proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or
A.L. Ang Network v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, 22 January 2014 temporary restraining order. It is true that there are instances where, even
To be sure, the Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. Such concurrence of issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or court of
jurisdiction, however, does not give a party unbridled freedom to choose the origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. The
venue of his action lest he ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. principle of judicial courtesy, however, remains to be the exception rather
Instead, a becoming regard for judicial hierarchy dictates that petitions for than the rule. As held by this Court in Go v. Abrogar, 398 SCRA 166 (2003),
the issuance of writs of certiorari against first level courts should be filed the precept of judicial courtesy should not be applied indiscriminately and
with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of haphazardly if we are to maintain the relevance of Section 7, Rule 65 of the
Appeals, before resort may be had before the Court. This procedure is also in Rules of Court. Indeed, in the amendments introduced by A.M. No.
consonance with Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 07-7-12-SC, a new paragraph is now added to Section 7, Rule 65, which
provides as follows: The public respondent shall proceed with the principal
Hence, considering that small claims cases are exclusively within the case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, certiorari petitions preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public
assailing its dispositions should be filed before their corresponding respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an
Regional Trial Courts. This petitioner complied with when it instituted its administrative charge.
petition for certiorari before the RTC which, as previously mentioned, has
jurisdiction over the same. In fine, the RTC erred in dismissing the said
petition on the ground that it was an improper remedy, and, as such, RTC Procedure after filing of Petition
Case No. 11-13833 must be reinstated and remanded thereto for its proper
Section 7, Rule 65. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. — The court
disposition.
in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the
proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a
E ect on Main case of Filing of Petition for writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the
Certiorari parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the
course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public
Section 7, Rule 65. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. — The court
respondent from further proceeding in the case.
in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the
proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a
writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the
Section 8, Rule 65. Proceedings after comment is filed. — After the
parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the
comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time
course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a
for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the case or require
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public
the parties to submit memoranda. If after such hearing or submission of
respondent from further proceeding in the case.
memoranda or the expiration of the period for the filing thereof the court
finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render
China Banking Corp. v. Cebu Printing & Packaging Corp, G.R. No. judgment for the relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is entitled.
172880
The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be
It is elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be
patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the
a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as it was in
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
this case. A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will not
be a cure for failure to timely file an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court. Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a
24

Rule 19.35. Service and enforcement of order or judgment. - A certified
Maralit v. PNB, G.R. No. 163788, 24 August 2009 copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the last preceding
In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample section shall be served upon the Regional Trial Court concerned in such
authority to receive new evidence and perform any act necessary to resolve manner as the Court of Appeals may direct, and disobedience thereto
factual issues. shall be punished as contempt.
Service and enforcement of judgment

Petition for prohibition
Section 9, Rule 65. Service and enforcement of order or judgment. — A
certified copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the last
preceding section shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency,
Definition and Scope of Prohibition
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person concerned in such manner
Section 2, Rule 65. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of
as the court may direct, and disobedience thereto shall be punished as
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising
contempt. An execution may issue for any damages or costs awarded in
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess
accordance with section 1 of Rule 39.
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain,
Special civil action for certiorari available in speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
Alternative Dispute Resolution [A.M. No. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
07-11-08] commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the
action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental
Rule 19.26. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. - When the Regional Trial reliefs as law and justice may require.
Court, in making a ruling under the Special ADR Rules, has acted without
or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification
party may file a special civil action for certiorari to annul or set aside a of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3,
ruling of the Regional Trial Court. Rule 46.

A special civil action for certiorari may be filed against the following
Holy Spirit Homeowner’s Assoc. v. Defensor, G.R. No. 163980
orders of the court:
Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any tribunal,
a. Holding that the arbitration agreement is inexistent, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
invalid quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, ordering said entity or person to
or unenforceable; desist from further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in
b. Reversing the arbitral tribunal’s preliminary excess of said entity’s or person’s jurisdiction, or are accompanied with
determination upholding its jurisdiction; grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy
c. Denying the request to refer the dispute to arbitration; and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Prohibition lies against
d. Granting or refusing an interim relief; judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or
e. Denying a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator; quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the purpose of a writ of prohibition is
f. Confirming, vacating or correcting a domestic arbitral to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain
award; the administration of justice in orderly channels. Prohibition is the proper
g. Suspending the proceedings to set aside an international remedy to afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an
commercial arbitral award and referring the case back to the inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters
arbitral tribunal; clearly within its cognizance the inferior court transgresses the bounds
h. Allowing a party to enforce an international commercial prescribed to it by the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available
arbitral award pending appeal; in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be obtained.
i. Adjourning or deferring a ruling on whether to set aside,
recognize and or enforce an international commercial
arbitral award;
Directed against whom and what
j. Allowing a party to enforce a foreign arbitral award Section 2(1), Rule 65. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of
pending appeal; and any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising
k. Denying a petition for assistance in taking evidence. judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
25

lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person Without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368
commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the
action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental
August 2003
reliefs as law and justice may require. [SEE PREVIOUS CASE]
Definition of judicial function Constitutional issues

Ruperto v. Torres, G.R. No. L-8785, 25 February 1957
Francisco, Jr. v. TRB, G.R. No. 166910, 19 Oct 2010
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE]
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are, as here, appropriate remedies to
raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify, when
Definition of quasi-judicial function proper, acts of legislative and executive officials.
United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on
NOTE: Formal Requirements, Effect of non-compliance with formal
Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, 07 March 2001 requirements, Period within which to file petition, Party Respondents,
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE] Jurisdiction, Concurrency of Jurisdiction and Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts,
Effect on Main case of Filing of Petition for Certiorari, Procedure after filing of
Petition, Service and enforcement of judgment – same as for petition for
Definition of ministerial function certiorari
Sps. Marquez v. Sps. Alindog, G.R. No. 184045
The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well Jurisdiction
delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or
tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the Supreme Court
exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act
done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right Section 5(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court shall have
to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is the following powers:
discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
judgment. petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
Requisites
Rivera v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 135547, 23 January 2002 Exclusive original jurisdiction over final orders and
resolutions of the CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, COMELEC,
For writs of prohibition, the requisites are:
(1) the impugned act must be that of a “tribunal, corporation,
COA and the Ombudsman in criminal cases
board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions”; and Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 14914
(2) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the [SEE PREVIOUS CASE]
ordinary course of law.”
Court of Appeals
Grounds
Grave abuse of discretion Section 9, BP 129 . The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
Roquero v. Chancellor of UP Manila, G.R. No. 181851 prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto,and
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE] auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment
Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, 15 June 2011 of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE] 3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and
26

quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying

commission, including the Securities and Exchange that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages
Commission, Except those falling within the appellate sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the respondent.
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.

Eng v. Lee, G.R. No. 176831, 15 Jan 2010
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent
hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some
resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results
trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from
three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. operation of law. This definition recognizes the public character of the
remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the
purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no
Regional Trial Court interest. The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a
public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially
Section 21, BP 129. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution. As the
jurisdiction: quoted provision instructs, mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation,
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.
which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an official to do
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do, or to
ministers and consuls. give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. Nor will
mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or as to
which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a mere
Sandiganbayan technical question will be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is
meritorious. As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of the
Section 4(4), PD 1606. The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original following grounds:
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, [a] that the court, officer, board, or person against whom the
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of an act
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in office, trust, or station; or
cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and [b] that such court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully
14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a
shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. right or office to which he is entitled. On the part of the relator, it
is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he
Petition for Mandamus should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it
must be the imperative duty of respondent to perform the act
required.
Definition and scope of mandamus
Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle that mandamus
cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations. Generally, mandamus
Section 3, Rule 65. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal,
will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and will not lie against
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
an individual unless some obligation in the nature of a public or
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
quasi-public duty is imposed. The writ is not appropriate to enforce a private
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another
right against an individual. The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
execution of an act, when, otherwise, justice would be obstructed; and,
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
regularly, issues only in cases relating to the public and to the government;
ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
hence, it is called a prerogative writ. To preserve its prerogative character,
27

mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the

relating to the public. act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the
right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is
An important principle followed in the issuance of the writ is that there discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the
should be no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or
law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked. In other words, judgment.
mandamus can be issued only in cases where the usual modes of procedure
and forms of remedy are powerless to afford relief. Although classified as a Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 188056, 08 January
legal remedy, mandamus is equitable in its nature and its issuance is
generally controlled by equitable principles. Indeed, the grant of the writ of
2013
mandamus lies in the sound discretion of the court. The petition could not be one for mandamus, which is a remedy available
only when “any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
Directed against whom and what duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other
Section 3(1), Rule 65. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty petition in the proper court.” The main objective of mandamus is to compel
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another the performance of a ministerial duty on the part of the respondent. Plainly
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is enough, the writ of mandamus does not issue to control or review the
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the exercise of discretion or to compel a course of conduct, which, it quickly
ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified seems to us, was what petitioners would have the Secretary of Justice do in
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying their favor. Consequently, their petition has not indicated how and where
that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or the Secretary of Justice’s assailed issuances excluded them from the use
at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to and enjoyment of a right or office to which they were unquestionably
be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages entitled.
sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
University of San Agustin, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 100588, 07 March
1994
Definition of ministerial function
The nature of mandamus has been the subject of discussions in several
Sps. Marquez v. Sps. Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, 22 January 2014 cases. It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance,
[SEE PREVIOUS CASE] when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not
lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course
of conduct, nor to control or review the exercise of discretion. On the part of
Special People, Inc. v. Canada, G.R. No. 160932, 14 January 2013 the petitioner,it is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he
A key principle to be observed in dealing with petitions for mandamus is should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the
that such extraordinary remedy lies to compel the performance of duties imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It never
that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary. A issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be necessary that the duty be
purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a absolutely expressed, it must however, be clear. The writ will not issue to
given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his
a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of its own judgment upon duty not to do, or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled
the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty is ministerial only by law. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a
when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion or command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty
judgment. already imposed.

Educational institutions are afforded ample discretion to formulate
Distinguished from discretionary act reasonable rules and regulations in the admission of students, including
setting of academic standards.
Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. Villaflor G.R. No. 1285090, 22 August 2006
“Discretion,” when applied to public functionaries, means a power or right BUT SEE: Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R.
conferred upon them by law or acting officially, under certain No.160966 11 October 2005
circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others. A
purely ministerial act or duty in contradiction to a discretional act is one While, ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act,
which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed the writ shall issue in instances of gross abuse of discretion, manifest
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to injustice or palpable excess of authority, equivalent to denial of a settled
right to which petitioner is entitled; and when there is no other plain,
28

speedy and adequate remedy. This Court has recognized that “[a] judge’s operation of law. Section 3, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
decision to refuse to act on account of some disqualification is not amended, reproduced below, governs the issuance of the writ of mandamus
conclusive, and his competency may be determined on an application for in this jurisdiction. SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.—When any tribunal,
mandamus to compel him to act.” corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
Distinguished from Prohibition trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment
of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
Ongusco v. Malones, G.R. No. 182065 person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
In a petition for prohibition against any tribunal, corporation, board, or alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
person—whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
functions—who has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights
abuse of discretion, the petitioner prays that judgment be rendered, of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by
commanding the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petition shall also
or matter specified in the petition. On the other hand, the remedy of contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
mandamus lies to compel performance of a ministerial duty. The petitioner paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
for such a writ should have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to
the performance of the act, and it must be the clear and imperative duty of From the foregoing Rule, there are two situations when a writ of mandamus
respondent to do the act required to be done. In this case, petitioners’ may issue:
primary intention is to prevent respondent from implementing Municipal (1) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
Ordinance No. 98-01, i.e., by collecting the goodwill fees from petitioners unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
and barring them from occupying the stalls at the municipal public market. specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
Obviously, the writ petitioners seek is more in the nature of prohibition station; or
(commanding desistance), rather than mandamus(compelling (2) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
performance). unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
right or office to which the other is entitled.
For a writ of prohibition, the requisites are:
(1) the impugned act must be that of a “tribunal, corporation, The “duty” mentioned in the first situation is a ministerial duty, not a
board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial, discretionary duty, requiring the exercise of judgment. The “right”
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions”; and mentioned in the second situation must be a well-defined, clear and
(2) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the certain, one that has been established by law. In short, for mandamus to lie,
ordinary course of law.” the duty sought to be compelled to be performed must be a ministerial duty,
not a discretionary duty, and the petitioner must show that he has a
The exercise of judicial function consists of the power to determine what well-defined, clear and certain right. It thus behooves this Court to
the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then to adjudicate determine whether these requirements have been satisfied.
upon the rights of the parties. The term quasi-judicial function applies to the
action and discretion of public administrative officers or bodies that are
required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold Requisites
hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action
and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. In implementing Municipal Pefianco v. Moral, 379 Phil. 468
Ordinance No. 98-01, respondent is not called upon to adjudicate the rights
The nature of the remedy of mandamus has been the subject of discussions
of contending parties or to exercise, in any manner, discretion of a judicial
in several cases. It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the
nature. A ministerial function is one that an officer or tribunal performs in
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main
the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without
objective. It does not lie to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary duty. It is
regard for the exercise of his or its own judgment, upon the propriety or
essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that petitioner should have
impropriety of the act done.
a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty
of the respondent to perform the act required. It never issues in doubtful
When Mandamus may Issue cases. While it may not be necessary that the duty be absolutely expressed,
it must nevertheless be clear. The writ will not issue to compel an official to
do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do, or give
Abaga v. Panes, G.R. No. 147044, 24 Aug 2007 to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. The writ neither
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction, in confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a
the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.6Must be
tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the instituted by an aggrieved party
performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from
the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from
29

Petition, Service and enforcement of judgment – same as for petition for
Guingona v. COMELEC G.R. No. 191846, 06 May 2010 certiorari.
In order that a petition for mandamus may be given due course, it must be
VI. Quo Warranto [R66]

instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal,
corporation, board, or person, which unlawfully excludes said party from
the enjoyment of a legal right. However, if the petition is anchored on the
people’s right to information on matters of public concern, any citizen can
be the real party in interest. The requirement of personal interest is
Action by Government against
satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part
of the general public which possesses the right. There is no need to show
Individuals
any special interest in the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are citizens Section 1, Rule 66. An action for the usurpation of a public office, position
and, as such, are interested in the faithful execution of the laws. or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or
Rights must be well-defined, clear and certain exercises a public office, position or franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the
Olama, et al. v. PNB (Marawi), et al., G.R. No. 169213 provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy granted by courts of office; or
appellate jurisdiction, directed to some corporation, officer, or inferior (c) An association which acts as a corporation within the
court, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, Philippines without being legally incorporated or without
which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is lawful authority so to act.
directed from operation of some law. Under the Rules of Court, the writ of
mandamus is available as a remedy only under these circumstances: When
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
Nature of Quo Warranto Proceeding as a
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting legal remedy
from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. no. 134577
in no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right
court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its
rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time enjoyment. The action may be brought by the solicitor general or a public
to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the prosecutor or any person claiming to be entitled to the public office or
rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another. The action
by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. x x x x. Thus, as an shall be brought against the person who allegedly usurped, intruded into or
extraordinary remedy, mandamus may be availed of only if the legal right to is unlawfully holding or exercising such office.
be enforced is well defined, clear and certain. It lies only to compel an
officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The duty is Distinction between quo warranto and
ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official
discretion nor judgment. mandamus

It is settled that in order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is Lota v. CA, G.R. No. L-14803, 30 June 1961
essential that, on the one hand, the person petitioning for it has a clear legal
right to the claim that is sought and that, on the other hand, the respondent While quo warranto and mandamus are often concurrent remedies,
has an imperative duty to perform that which is demanded of him. however, there exists a clear distinction between the two. The authorities
Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a are agreed that quo warranto is the remedy to try the right to an office or
duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The franchise and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, while mandamus only
principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, lies to enforce clear legal duties, not to try disputed titles; that where here
not to inquire and to adjudicate; thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of is usurpation or intrusion into an office, quo warranto is the proper remedy,
the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is already and that where the respondent, without claiming any right to an Office,
established. Unless the right to the relief is unclouded, mandamus will not excludes the petitioner therefrom, he remedy is mandamus, not quo
issue. warranto.

NOTE: Formal Requirements, Effect of non-compliance with formal
requirements, Period within which to file petition, Party Respondents,
Jurisdiction, Concurrency of Jurisdiction and Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts,
Effect on Main case of Filing of Petition for Certiorari, Procedure after filing of
30

Distinction between quo warranto and Quo Warranto against persons usurping an
election protest o ce in a private corporation improper
Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179431-42, G.R. No. 180443, 22 June Calleja v. Panday, G.R. No. 168696, 28 February 2006
2010 Prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8799, the Court, adopting Justice Feria's
An election protest proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. It is view, declared that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is "limited to
strictly a contest between the defeated and the winning candidates, based actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp a public office, position
on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities, to determine who or franchise; public officers who forfeit their office; and associations which
between them has actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast and act as corporations without being legally incorporated," while actions of
is entitled to hold the office. It can only be filed by a candidate who has duly quo warranto against corporations, or against persons who usurp an office
filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for in the preceding in a corporation, fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange
elections. A special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of Commission (SEC) and are governed by its rules.
disloyalty to the State, or of ineligibility of the winning candidate. The
When SolGen or Public Prosecutor

objective of the action is to unseat the ineligible person from the office, but
not to install the petitioner in his place. Any voter may initiate the action,
which is, strictly speaking, not a contest where the parties strive for
supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated even if the respondent Must Commence Action
may be unseated.
Section 2, Rule 66. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must
commence action. — The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when
Quo Warranto under Substantive Law directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon complaint or
otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the
Section 248, Omnibus Election Code. Effect of filing petition to annual or preceding section can be established by proof, must commence such
to suspend the proclamation. - The filing with the Commission of a action.
petition to annual or to suspend the proclamation of any candidate shall
suspend the running of the period within which to file an election
protest or quo warranto proceedings. Section 3, Rule 66. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may
commence action with permission of court. — The Solicitor General or a
public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court in which the
Section 253, Omnibus Election Code. Petition for quo warranto. - Any action is to be commenced, bring such an action at the request and upon
voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the relation of another person; but in such case the officer bringing it
regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of may first require an indemnity for the expenses and costs of the action
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the court by the person
quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought.
proclamation of the results of the election.

Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay officer on
the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the
OSG’s discretion to suspend/turn
Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the regional
trial court or metropolitan or municipal trial court, respectively, within
down filling of an action for quo
ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election. warranto

Section 259, Omnibus Election Code. Actual or compensatory damages.
Gonzales v Chavez, G.R. No. 97351, 04 February 1992
- Actual or compensatory damages may be granted in all election In the case at bar, the reason advanced by the Solicitor General for his
contests or in quo warranto proceedings in accordance with law. motion to withdraw his appearance is that he has been, more than once
embarrassed in court and thereby made "a laughing stock in its (his)

professionalism." Example is when the OSG lawyers betrayed ignorance in

open court of certain moves taken by the PCGG, such as the lifting of a
sequestration of an asset or when it was under the impression that an asset
had mysteriously disappeared only to be informed that "a PCGG
Commissioner had earlier by resolution authorized the disposition of said
asset."

31

Finally, SC said that considering the spirit and the letter of Sec. 35 of the
order to that effect, copies of which shall be served on all interested
Administrative Code it is mandatory upon the OSG to "represent the
parties, and the petition shall then be filed within the period ordered by
Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
the court.
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of a lawyer."

Therefore, the Solicitor General's withdrawal of his appearance on behalf of When an Individual May Commence
the PCGG was beyond the scope of his authority.
Such an Action
Gumaru v Quirino State College, G.R. No. 164196, 22 June 2007 Section 5, Rule 66. A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or
Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring
known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides: The Office of the an action therefor in his own name.
Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its
agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When Action commenced by OSG or fiscal or by an
authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also individual in his own name
represent government owned or controlled corporations.

In the case at bar, respondent state college is classified under the Code as a
Feliciano v. Villasin, G.R. No. 174929, 27 June 2008
chartered institution, viz.: (12) Chartered institution refers to any agency According to the Rules of Procedure: The action may be commenced for the
organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with Government by the Solicitor General or the fiscal against a person who
functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office,
includes the state universities and colleges and the monetary authority of position or franchise; a public officer whose acts constitute a ground for the
the State. forfeiture of his office; or against an association which acts as a corporation
without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to so act. The
Therefore, the proper statutory counsel of respondent state college is the action may also be instituted by an individual in his own name who claims
OSG. Legal representation by Atty. Carlos T. Aggabao, a private lawyer, was to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or
clearly improper. exercised by another.

Topacio v. Assoc. Justice of the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 179895, In the instance in which the Petition for Quo Warranto is filed by an
individual in his own name, he must be able to prove that he is entitled to
18 December 2008 the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder
Topacio implored OSG to initiate quo warranto proceeding against Ong in his of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof.
capacity as an incumbent SB AJ, pointing out that Article VIII, §7(1) of the
Consti and Kilosbayan v. Ermita both point out that natural-born citizenship
is a qualification for SB Justices, and that Ong failed to meet this The private person suing must show a clear
requirement from the time of his appointment in October 1998. OSG replied right to the contested o ce
that it can’t act on the request for QW until the RTC case has been settled
with finality.
Topacio v. Assoc. Justice of the Sandiganbayan (supra.)
SC held that in the exercise of sound discretion, the Sol-Gen may suspend or
turn down the institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just E ect of absence of the element showing
and valid reasons. Here, Tapacio presented no sufficient proof of a clear and
indubitable franchise to the office of a SB AJ. He in fact concedes that he
petitioner entitled to the o ce
was never entitled to assume the office.
Garcia v. Perez, G.R. No. L-28184, 11 September 1980
When hearing had on application In a quo warranto proceeding to try title to a public office, the petitioner
must be able to show that he is entitled to said office à absent such an
for permission to commence action element, the petition must be dismissed. In this case, Garcia’s complaint
does not claim to be entitled to the position but merely asserted
preferential right to be appointed.
Section 4, Rule 66. Upon application for permission to commence such
action in accordance with the next preceding section, the court shall
direct that notice be given to the respondent so that he may be heard in
opposition thereto; and if permission is granted, the court shall issue an
Topacio v. Assoc. Justice of the Sandiganbayan (supra.)
[pls refer to previous case discussion]
32

E ect when plainti is not entitled to public Filing of petition for quo warranto subject to
o ce – dismissed at any stage in the absence hierarchy of courts
of evidence proving allegations
Mendoza v. Villas, G.R. No. 187256, 23 February 2011
Feliciano v. Villasin (supra.) [check previous case] Although the Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not
Parties and contents of petition give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum; A
against usurpation
becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that
petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level
(“inferior”) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court and those
Section 6, Rule 66. When the action is against a person for usurping a against the latter with the Court of Appeals; A direct invocation of the
public office, position or franchise, the petition shall set forth the name Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue those writs should be allowed
of the person who claim to be entitled thereto, if any, with an averment only when there are special and important reasons therefor; clearly and
of his right to the same and that the respondent is unlawfully in specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a
possession thereof. All persons who claim to be entitled to the public policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and
office, position or franchise may be made parties, and their respective attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
rights to such public office, position or franchise determined, in the jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s docket.
same action.
Period for pleadings and

Usurpation defined
proceedings may be reduced; action
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona (supra.) [ check previous case] given precedence - to secure
expeditious determination of
Usurpation generally refers to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and
exercise of power by one without color of title or who is not entitled by law
thereto.
matters involved
Venue Section 8, Rule 66. Period for pleadings and proceedings may be
reduced; action given precedence. — The court may reduce the period
provided by these Rules for filing pleadings and for all other proceedings
Section 7, Rule 66. An action under the preceding six sections can be
in the action in order to secure the most expeditious determination of
brought only in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the
the matters involved therein consistent with the rights of the parties.
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area
Such action may be given precedence over any other civil matter
where the respondent or any of the respondents resides, but when the
pending in the court.
Solicitor General commences the action, it may be brought in a Regional
Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme
Court.
Judgment where usurpation found
Jurisdiction in Quo Warranto Cases Section 9, Rule 66. When the respondent is found guilty of usurping into,
intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office,
a. Supreme Court (Section 5 [1], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
position or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent
b Court of Appeals (Sec. 9 [1], BP 129
be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or
c. Regional Trial Court (Sec. 21 [1]. BP 129)
relator, as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment
d. Sandiganbayan (PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249)
may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public

office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice

requires.
33

from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the

Judgment in quo warranto in case of cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or
usurpation into the o ce; Judgment in quo position, arose, nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance
warranto does not bind successor in o ce with the provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be
commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the judgment
establishing the petitioner's right to the office in question.
Mendoza v. Allas, G.R. No. 131977, 04 February 1999
If it is found that the respondent or defendant is usurping or intruding into
the office, or unlawfully holding the same, the court may order:
Prescriptive period to file petitions for quo
(1) The ousting and exclusion of the defendant from office; warranto and mandamus
(2) The recovery of costs by plaintiff or relator;
(3) The determination of the respective rights in and to the office, position, Madrigal v. Lecaros, G.R. No. L-46218, 23 October 1990
right, privilege or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice
requires. On November 25, 1971, public respondents abolished petitioner-appellant
Joventino Madrigal's position as a permanent construction capataz in the
The RTC ruled in favor of Mendoza, ordering his reinstatement and office of the Provincial Engineer from the annual Roads Bridges Fund Budget
backwages. Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer in regard to a for fiscal year 1971-1972 by virtue of Resolution No. 204. On December 15,
public right binds his successor in office. This rule, however, is not 1975, Madrigal filed a petition before the CFI of Marinduque against public
applicable in quo warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind respondents for mandamus and damages. The court ruled that Madrigal's
the respondent's successor in office, even though such successor may cause of action was barred by laches: It is beyond question that herein
trace his title to the same source. petitioner was separated from the service on November 25, 1971, and it was
only on December 15, 1975, or FOUR (4) YEARS and TWENTY (20) DAYS after,
It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the person — to that he filed this case for "Mandamus and Damages" with the principal aim
determine whether he is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform of causing his reinstatement to the public position from where his service
any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim. In was terminated. A person claiming right to a position in the civil service
the case at bar, the petition for quo warranto was filed by Mendoza solely should file his action for reinstatement within one year from his illegal
against respondent Allas. What was threshed out before the trial court was removal from office, otherwise he is considered as having abandoned the
the qualification and right of Mendoza to the contested position as against same.
respondent Ray Allas, not against Godofredo Olores.
Prescriptive period of quo warranto under
Rights of persons entitled to public Omnibus Election Code - Section 248
o ce and delivery of books and Exception
papers; damages
Cristobal v. Melchor, G.R. No. L-43203, 29 July 1977
Section 10, Rule 66. If judgment be rendered in favor of the person Laches does not attach and failure to file quo warranto proceeding does not
averred in the complaint to be entitled to the public office he may, after operate adversely against a dismissed government employee where it was
taking the oath of office and executing any official bond required by law, the act of responsible government officials which contributed in the delay
take upon himself the execution of the office, and may immediately of the filing of complaint for reinstatement. Thus, the doctrine of laches will
thereafter demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the not be taken against him where the defendant is shown to have promised
respondent's custody or control appertaining to the office to which the from time to time to grant the relief sought for.
judgment relates. If the respondent refuses or neglects to deliver any
book or paper pursuant to such demand, he may be punished for
contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court. The person Administrative remedy does not abate period
adjudged entitled to the office may also bring action against the for filing a quo warranto action
respondent to recover the damages sustained by such person by reason
of the usurpation.
Sison v. Pangramuyen, G.R. No. L-40295, 31 July 1978
Limitations
Sison files a petition for quo warranto questioning the appointment of
Maliwanag by the CSC as assistant city assessor on November 1973. He
claims that he should be the one appointed as per the next-in rank-rule. The
Section 11, Rule 66. Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to petition was filed on March 1975, more than a year after the appointment of
authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster Maliwanag. The action has prescribed because quo warranto prescribes
after 1 year from the time the cause of action accrues (i.e. questioned
34

appointment). And it is of no avail to petitioner that during the intervening
claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof or interest therein,
period of more than one year, he was seeking relief from the corresponding
showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of each defendant.
administrative authorities. Resort to administrative remedy does not abate
If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the
the period for judicial action.
Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or
if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot
Judgment for Costs with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to
that effect shall be made in the complaint.
Section 12, Rule 66. In an action brought in accordance with the
provisions of this Rule, the court may render judgment for costs against The right of eminent domain
either the petitioner, the relator, or the respondent, or the person or
persons claiming to be a corporation, or may apportion the costs, as
Bgy. Sindala v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, 22 March 2007
justice requires.
Brgy. Sindalan created a resolution and filed a complaint for eminent
domain to expropriate a private property of Sps. Magtoto for the alleged
VIII. Expropriation [R67] public use of its residents. Sps. Magtoto argued that it is rather for private
use because only the residents of the private subdivision will benefit. SC
held that the exercise is intended for private use; thus, it cannot be
expropriated. Also, it is the subdivision owner who must be provide a
Constitutional provisions of the right-of-way for its residents, not the barangay was a basic political unit.

power of eminent domain and its Eminent domain is defined as “the power of the nation or a sovereign state
to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use
limitations without the owner’s consent, conditioned upon payment of just
compensation.” It is “an inherent political right, founded on a common
Sec. 18, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. The State may, in the interest of necessity and interest of appropriating the property of individual members
national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, of the community to the great necessities of the whole community.” This
upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership power is constrained by 2 Constitutional provisions: (1) that private property
utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government. shall not be taken for public use without just compensation under Article III
(Bill of Rights), Section 9 and (2) that no person shall be deprived of his/her
life, liberty, or property without due process of law under Art. III, Sec. 1.
Sec. 4, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution. The State shall, by law, undertake an
agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular First requirement for valid exercise of eminent domain: public use. It has no
farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands precise meaning, however, it is generally viewed as “public advantage,
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of convenience, or benefit, and that anything which tends to enlarge the
the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake resources, increase the industrial energies, and promote the productive
the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities power of any considerable number of the inhabitants of a section of the
and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking state, or which leads to the growth of towns and the creation of new
into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and resources for the employment of capital and labor, [which] contributes to
subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention the general welfare and prosperity of the whole community.” Public nature
limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State of this right cannot depend on the “numerical count of those to be served or
shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. the smallness or largeness of the community to be benefited.”

Second is the payment of just compensation to the property owner. It is the
Sec. 22, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution. At the earliest possible time, the full and fair market value of the property taken per tax declaration or the
Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as amount equal to the BIR zonal valuation, whichever is higher. The gauge for
may be defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the computation is the owner’s loss. For it to be just, it must be real, substantial,
agrarian reform program. full and ample; it must also be made within a reasonable time from the
taking.

Allegations of the complainant Next, there must be due process, i.e., reasonable opportunity to be heard
and to present objections. Taking of property for private use or without just
Section 1, Rule 67. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the compensation also constituted deprivation of due process.
filing of a verified complaint which shall state with certainty the right
and purpose of expropriation, describe the real or personal property
sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants all persons owning or
35


Republic v. Legaspi, Sr., G.R. No. 177611, 08 April 2012
2 stages: condemnation/acquisition for public use and determination of Concept of taking of property
just compensation
Republic v. De Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620, 15 August 1974
Expropriation or the exercise of the power of eminent domain is the
inherent right of the state and of those entities to which the power has been Elements of “taking” of property for purposes of eminent domain:
lawfully delegated to condemn private property to public use upon payment (1) the expropriator must enter a private property;
of just compensation. Governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the (2) the entrance into private property must be for more than a
proceedings therefore consist of two (2) stages: (a) the condemnation of momentary period;
the property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a public (3) the entry into the property should be under warrant or color
purpose or public use; and, (b) the determination of just compensation to be of legal authority;
paid for the taking of private property to be made by the court with the (4) the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise
assistance of not more than three commissioners. informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such
The fact that said lots are being utilized by respondents Legaspi for their a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial
own private purposes is, consequently, not a valid reason to deny exercise enjoyment of the property.
of the right of expropriation, for as long as the taking is for a public purpose
and just compensation is paid. Requisite #2 was absent. The fact that the Republic, through AFP,
constructed some installations of a permanent nature does not alter the
fact that the entry into the land was transitory, or intended to last a year,
The term “public use” although renewable from year to year by consent of the owner of the land.
Requisite #5 was absent.
Manosca v. CA, G.R. No. 106440, 29 January 1996
Castellvi remained as owner, and was continuously recognized as owner by
Use concerning the whole community and not private individuals. the Republic, as shown by the renewal of the lease contract from year to
year, and by the provision in the lease contract whereby the Republic
Petitioners ask, “But (w)hat is the so-called unusual interest that the undertook to return the property to Castellvi when the lease was
expropriation of (Felix Manalos) birthplace become so vital as to be a public terminated. Neither was Castellvi deprived of all the beneficial enjoyment of
use appropriate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain when only the property, because the Republic was bound to pay, and had been paying
members of the Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit?” Castellvi the agreed monthly rentals.

The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the Taking of private property necessarily originates from the necessity therefor
distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, 23
Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the January 2006
Iglesia ni Cristo. The right to take private property for public purposes necessarily originates
from "the necessity" and the taking must be limited to such necessity. xxx
The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the the very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine
Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a peculiar necessity and that necessity must be of a public character.
advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature.
Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of In City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, we held that the very
property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity
use. and that necessity must be of a public character. Moreover, the
ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany and not follow,
Expanded definition of “public use or purpose” the taking of the land. In City of Manila v. Arellano Law College, we ruled that
"necessity within the rule that the particular property to be expropriated
City of Manila v. Te, G.R. No. 169263, 21 September 2011 must be necessary, does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable or
Socialized housing expands definition of public use. Specifically, urban practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the
renewal or development and the construction of low-cost housing are public with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party
recognized as a public purpose, not only because of the expanded concept and the property owner consistent with such benefit."
of public use but also because of specific provisions in the Constitution: Art.
II, Sec. 9 & Art. XIII, Sec. 9. Applying this standard, we hold that respondent City of Pasig has failed to
establish that there is a genuine necessity to expropriate petitioner’s
Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state property. Our scrutiny of the records shows that the Certification issued by
concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the the Caniogan Barangay Council dated November 20, 1994, the basis for the
environment and in sum, the general welfare passage of Ordinance No. 42 s. 1993 authorizing the expropriation, indicates
36

that the intended beneficiary is the Melendres Compound Homeowners

Association, a private, non-profit organization, not the residents of
Caniogan. It can be gleaned that the members of the said Association are Power of eminent domain maybe delegated to
desirous of having their own private playground and recreational facility. local gov’ts and public utilities
Petitioner’s lot is the nearest vacant space available. The purpose is,
therefore, not clearly and categorically public. The necessity has not been
shown, especially considering that there exists an alternative facility for
National Power Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 106804, 12 August 2004
sports development and community recreation in the area, which is the The power of eminent domain may be validly delegated to the local
Rainforest Park, available to all residents of Pasig City, including those of governments, other public entities, and public utilities such as the NPC. In
Caniogan. this case, the Commission on Volcanology certified that thermal mineral
water and steam were present beneath Pobre’s property. The Commission
on Volcanology found the thermal mineral water and steam suitable for
Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding domestic use and potentially for commercial or industrial use. thus, the NPC
filed 2 expropriation cases against Pobre, owner of the property. NPC is
Bgy. San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, G.R. authorized by law to acquire property and exercise the right of eminent
No. 138896, 20 June 2000 domain.
NPC v. Joson held that expropriation proceedings have two phases. 1st
Phase: concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to Requisites for LGU to validly exercise the
exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in power of eminent domain
the context of the facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of
dismissal of the action, of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a
lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corp.,
or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just Requisites are:
compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. 1. Local ordinance
An order of dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a final one, of course, 2. Exercise of power of eminent domain for public use
since it finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by 3. Just compensation
the Court on the merits. 4. Valid and definite offer previously made to owner who refused.
Phase: concerned with the determination by the court of “the just In this case, the local chief executive sought to exercise the power of
compensation for the property sought to be taken.” This is done by the Court eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the municipal council. ○ No
with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order compliance with the 1st requirement.
fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and
findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose
of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the
Eminent domain not barred by res judicata
Court regarding the issue.
Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corp. (supra.)
City of Manila v. Te (supra.) It is true that all the requisites of res judicata are present in this case.
However, it cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate
private property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power
Power of eminent domain is lodged in the of the State, dictates that the right to exercise the power be absolute and
legislative branch of the government unfettered even by a prior judgment or res judicata. The scope of eminent
domain is plenary and, like police power, can reach every form of property
which the State might need for public use.
Masikip v. City of Pasig (supra.)
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the State
government. It delegates the exercise thereof to local government units, to exercise eminent domain, it does apply to specific issues decided in a
other public entities and public utility corporations, subject only to previous case. For example, a final judgment dismissing an expropriation
Constitutional limitations. Local governments have no inherent power of suit on the ground that there was no prior offer precludes another suit
eminent domain and may exercise it only when expressly authorized by raising the same issue; it cannot, however, bar the State or its agent from
statute. Section 19* of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) thereafter complying with this requirement, as prescribed by law, and
prescribes the delegation by Congress of the power of eminent domain to subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain over the same
local government units and lays down the parameters for its exercise. property.
37

Jurisdiction of the complaint for eminent Entry of plainti upon depositing
domain
value with authorized government
Bgy. San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor Depositary
(supra.)
An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation. An expropriation Section 2, Rule 67. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with
suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals with authorized government depositary. — Upon the filing of the complaint or
the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff
property for public use. Thus, jurisdiction is with the RTC. shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real
property involved if he deposits with the authorized government
depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property
Expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of
estimation the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the
court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government
bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the
Bardillon v. Bgy. Masili, Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, 30 authorized government depositary.
April 2003
Though the value of the land was only P11,448, the MTC did not have If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally
jurisdiction. The CA held that the assessed value was P28,960, thus beyond ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by
the MTC’s P20,000 jurisdictional amount. An expropriation suit does not the court.
involve recovery of a sum of money. It deals with the exercise by the
government of its authority and right to take property for public use, and as After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other
such, is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the RTC. proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the
The amount of just compensation is determined only after the court is property involved and promptly submit a report thereof to the court with
satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation. service of copies to the parties.
Judicial review is limited to some areas of Expropriation procedures under RA No. 8974
concern and Rule 67 distinguished
Masikip v. City of Pasig (supra.) Republic v. Holy Trinity Realty Development Corp.
1. necessity of taking There are two crucial differences between the respective procedures under
2. public use character of purpose of taking Rep. Act No. 8974 and Rule 67. Under the statute, the Government is required
3. just compensation to make immediate payment to the property owner upon the filing of the
complaint to be entitled to a writ of possession, whereas in Rule 67, the
Government is required only to make an initial deposit with an authorized
Execution pending appeal is not applicable to government depositary. Moreover, Rule 67 prescribes that the initial deposit
expropriation proceeding be equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation,
unlike Rep. Act No. 8974 which provides, as the relevant standard for initial
compensation, the market value of the property as stated in the tax
Curata v. Phil. Ports Authority, G.R. No. 154211-12, 22 June 2009 declaration or the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal
Court rules that discretionary execution of judgments pending appeal under Revenue (BIR), whichever is higher, and the value of the improvements
Sec. 2(a) of Rule 39 does not apply to eminent domain proceedings. PPAs and/or structures using the replacement cost method. Also, Rep. Act No.
monies, facilities and assets are government properties. Ergo, they are 8974, which provides for a procedure eminently more favorable to the
exempt from execution whether by virtue of a final judgment or pending property owner than Rule 67, inescapably applies in instances when the
appeal. PPA is a government instrumentality charged with carrying out national government expropriates property for national government
governmental functions through the management, supervision, control and infrastructure projects. Thus, if expropriation is engaged in by the national
regulation of major ports of the country. It is an attached agency of the government for purposes other than national infrastructure projects, the
Department of Transportation and Communication pursuant to PD 505. assessed value standard and the deposit mode prescribed in Rule 67
continues to apply.
38

Philippine jurisprudence on the subject is not. In the case of Republic v.
Pasicolan, this Court recognized the collection made by the landowner of
When the issuance is the writ of possession is the amount deposited on the provisional payment of the expropriated lots.
ministerial This preliminary deposit serves the double purpose of a prepayment upon
the value of the property, if finally expropriated; and as an indemnity
against damage in the eventuality that the proceedings should fail of
City of Iloilo v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 154614, 25 November 2004 consummation.
The requisites for authorizing immediate entry are as follows: (1) the filing
of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; and (2)
the deposit of the amount equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the fair
market value of the property to be expropriated based on its current tax
Defenses and Objections
declaration. Upon compliance with these requirements, the issuance of a
Section 3, Rule 67. If a defendant has no objection or defense to the
writ of possession becomes ministerial.
action or the taking of his property, he may file and serve a notice of
appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating
As long as the expropriation proceedings have been commenced and the
or identifying the property in which he claims to be interested, within
deposit has been made, the local government unit cannot be barred from
the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice
praying for the issuance of a writ of possession.
of all proceedings affecting the same.

Rule on issuance of writ of possession If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the
complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he
governed by section 2, Rule 67 shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The
answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he
Biglang-awa v. Bacalla, G.R. Nos. 139927 & 139936, 22 November claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest
2000 claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his
property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be
The Biglangawas’ properties were being expropriated by the government to alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.
give way for the creation of the Mindanao Avenue Extension. Sufficient
notices were given for such and expropriation proceedings were filed in the A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the
RTC. Biglangawas objected to the expropriation proceedings, stating that court, in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer
there was no compliance with EO 1035. Court ruled that the expropriation to be made not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However,
proceedings were proper since the only requisites of expropriation found in at the trial of the issue of just compensation whether or not a defendant
Sec. 2 Rule 67 were met. has previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to
the amount of the compensation to be paid for his property, and he may
The requirements for issuance of a writ of possession once the share in the distribution of the award.
expropriation case is filed, are expressly and specifically governed by
Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The only requisites
for authorizing immediate entry in expropriation proceedings are:

Order of Expropriation
(1) The filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and
substance; and Section 4, Rule 67. Order of expropriation. — If the objections to and the
(2) The making of a deposit equivalent to the assessed value of the property defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are
subject to expropriation, upon compliance with which the issuance of the overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule,
writ of possession becomes “ministerial. the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff
has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the
public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of
Requisites of expropriation under Section 19 just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the
of The Local Government Code property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.

A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be
Bardillon v. Bgy. Masili, Calamba, Laguna (supra.) appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall
not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be
Purpose of preliminary deposit paid.

After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to
Zaballero v. NHA, G.R. No. L-49291-92, 29 October 1987 dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court on Eminent Domain is silent on the matter of court deems just and equitable.
provisional payment pending the determination of just compensation but
39

Hearing is necessary before the Ascertainment of compensation

issuance of an order of
expropriation
Section 5, Rule 67. Ascertainment of compensation. — Upon the rendition
of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three
(3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain
and report to the court the just compensation for the property sought to
Republic v. Phil-ville Development and Housing Corp, G.R. No.
be taken. The order of appointment shall designate the time and place of
172243, 26 June 2007 the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and
During the first stage, if the defendant had denied or objected to the specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the
plaintiff’s right to expropriate, a hearing would have been held to decide court.
upon whether the land was private, and whether the purpose was, in fact,
public. However, once the objections and defenses against the right of the Copies of the order shall be served on the parties. Objections to the
plaintiff to expropriate are overruled, an order of expropriation may issue. appointment of any of the commissioners shall be filed with the court
With all the more reason must this be so when, as in this case, there is no within ten (10) days from service, and shall be resolved within thirty
contest or objection by either of the herein respondents as to the (30) days after all the commissioners shall have received copies of the
petitioner’s right to expropriate. After the trial court determined the right of objections.
petitioner to condemn the subject properties for the expansion and
rehabilitation of the North Luzon Expressway, the first stage of the
expropriation proceedings should have been properly terminated with the Determination of just compensation in
issuance of an order of expropriation declaring that petitioner has the right eminent domain is judicial function
to take the properties.
Cabahug v. NPC, G.R. No. 186069, 30 January 2013
Period to appeal in an action for The determination of JC in eminent domain proceedings is a judicial
function and no statute, decree, or EO can mandate that its own
expropriation determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. Any valuation for JC
laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the
factors in determining JC, but it may not substitute the court’s own
National Power Corp. v. Paderanga, G.R. No. 155065, 28 July judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such
2005 amount. Hence. RA 6395 is not binding upon SC in this case.
While admittedly a complaint for expropriation is not a special proceeding,
the above-quoted rule requires the filing of a record on appeal in “other
cases of multiple or separate appeal.” Jurisprudential law, no doubt,
Just compensation, defined
recognizes the existence of multiple appeals in a complaint for
expropriation. Multiple or separate appeals being existent in the present Bgy. Sindalan v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, 22 March 2007
expropriation case, NPC should have filed a record on appeal within 30 days Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from
from receipt of the trial court’s decision. its owner by the expropriator. The gauge for the computation is not the
taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. In order for the payment to be "just," it
When may a record on appeal be filed must be real, substantial, full, and ample. Not only must the payment be fair
and correctly determined, it must also be made within a reasonable time
from the taking of the property. Without prompt payment, compensation
Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260, 22 December cannot be considered “just”. Thus, once just compensation is finally
1989 determined, the expropriator must immediately pay the amount to the lot
The Court therefore holds that in actions of eminent domain, as in actions owner.
for partition, since no less than two (2) appeals are allowed by law, the
period for appeal from an order of condemnation is thirty (30) days counted Compensation must be just not only to
from notice of said order and not the ordinary period of fifteen (15) days
prescribed for actions in general, conformably with the provision of Section property owner but also to the public
39 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, in relation to paragraph 19 (b) of the
Implementing Rules to the effect that in „appeals in special proceedings in Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 147245, 31 March 2005
accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases wherein
The owner may recover his property if its return is feasible, or, if it is not, the
multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) days,
aggrieved owner may demand payment of just compensation for the land
a record of appeal being required.
taken. In this case, the trial court found that respondent is entitled to
40

compensation of P4 Million for 11 hectares of the Property, or P36.36 per impelled the commissioner to arrive at the recommended amount,
square meter while petitioner contends that the reckoning point should otherwise the report becomes hearsay and is not considered by court.
begin at the time the trial court made its order of expropriation in
accordance with the ruling in Garcia v.CA.
Article 1250 of Civil Code is not applicable in
There is no dispute that the Canal Sites serve a public purpose because the obligation arising from law
canals provide much-needed irrigation to farms in the locality. Just
compensation for the Canal Sites must thus be computed as of the time of
taking.
Commissioner of Public highways v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-36706
Extraordinary inflation/deflation of currency is not applicable in
Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount expropriation cases and applies only in cases where a contract or
due to the property owner but also payment to him of the amount due within agreement is involved.
a reasonable time from the taking. Respondent is certainly entitled to legal
interest and damages by reason of NIA’s inexcusable delay.
Proceedings by commissioners
Remedies of landowner when property taken Section 6, Rule 67. Proceedings by commissioners. — Before entering
for public use upon the performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take and
subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as
Sec. of the DSWD v. Heracleo, G.R. No. 179334, 01 July 2013 commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other
proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party
When a property is taken by the government for public use, jurisprudence before the commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on
clearly provides for the remedies available to a landowner à the owner may hearings before them, and the commissioners shall, unless the parties
recover his property if its return is feasible or, if it is not, the aggrieved consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties, to attend, view
owner may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its
surroundings, and may measure the same, after which either party may,
In the present case, for the failure of respondents to question the lack of by himself or counsel, argue the case. The commissioners shall assess
expropriation proceedings for a long period of time, they are deemed to the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from
have waived and are estopped from assailing the power of the government such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived
to expropriate or the public use for which the power was exercised à what is by the owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the
left to respondents is the right of compensation. operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the
business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case
Market value = Property’s fair market value at the time of the filing of shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential
complaint or that sum of money which a person may but is not compelled to damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his
buy and an owner is willing but is not compelled to sell. property so taken.
NPC v. Bagui, G.R. No. 164964, 17 October 2008

While market value may be one of the bases of determining just Report by commissioners and
compensation, the same cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without
considering the factors to be appreciated in arriving at the fair market value
judgment thereupon
of the property, e.g., the cost of acquisition, the current value of like
properties, its size, shape, location, as well as the tax declarations thereon. Section 7, Rule 67. Report by commissioners and judgment thereupon. —
The court may order the commissioners to report when any particular
portion of the real estate shall have been passed upon by them, and may
NPC v. Ycla Sugar Development Corp., G.R. No. 193936, 11 render judgment upon such partial report, and direct the commissioners
December 201 to proceed with their work as to subsequent portions of the property
Just compensation is ascertained as of the time of taking w/c usually sought to be expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such
coincides with commencement of expropriation proceedings. If the property. The commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to the
institution of action precedes entry into the property, just compensation is court of all their proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be
to be ascertained as of the time of filing the complaint. effectual until the court shall have accepted their report and rendered
judgment in accordance with their recommendations. Except as
It cannot be arrived at arbitrarily, in determining such, the same is based on otherwise expressly ordered by the court, such report shall be filed
various factors such as the fair market value of the property, the value of within sixty (60) days from the date the commissioners were notified of
like properties. The commissioners’ report being is based on such, it is their appointment, which time may be extended in the discretion of the
imperative that the report is supported by pertinent documents w/c court. Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of the court shall serve
copies thereof on all interested parties, with notice that they are
41

allowed ten (10) days within which to file objections to the findings of
the report, if they so desire. It is clear that in addition to the ocular inspection performed by the two (2)
appointed commissioners in this case, they are also required to conduct a
hearing or hearings to determine just compensation; and to provide the
Action upon commissioner’s report parties the following: (1) notice of the said hearings and the opportunity to
attend them; (2) the opportunity to introduce evidence in their favor during
the said hearings; and (3) the opportunity for the parties to argue their
respective causes during the said hearings
Section 8, Rule 67. Action upon commissioners' report. — Upon the
expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding
section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the
interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their
statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept Uncertain ownership; conflicting
the report and render judgment in accordance therewith, or, for cause
shown, it may recommit the same to the commissioners for further
claims
report of facts, or it may set aside the report and appoint new
Section 9, Rule 67. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims. — If the
commissioners; or it may accept the report in part and reject it in part
ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or there are conflicting
and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to
claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums
the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of
awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the court for the
expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property
benefit of the person adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled
so taken.
thereto. But the judgment shall require the payment of the sum or sums
awarded to either the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can
Trial Court may accept or reject enter upon the property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry
has already been made.
commissioners report
Republic v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 187677, 17 April 2013
NPC v. Zabala, G.R. No. 173520, 30 January 2013
The sole issue in this case, i.e., whether or not the court that hears the
Under Sec. 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the trial court may accept or
expropriation case has also jurisdiction to determine, in the same
reject, whether in whole or in part, the commissioners’ report which is
proceeding, the issue of ownership of the land sought to be condemned,
merely advisory and recommendatory in character. It may also recommit
must be resolved in the affirmative. That the court is empowered to
the report or set aside the same and appoint new commissioners.
entertain the conflicting claims of ownership of the condemned or sought to

be condemned property and adjudge the rightful owner thereof, in the same
In this case, RTC failed to consider nor did they require the submission of
expropriation case, is evident from Section 9 of the Revised Rule 69.
additional evidence to support the recommended ₱150.00 per square meter
just compensation. Hence, the RTC's ruling insofar as the just compensation
cannot be sustained.
Rights of plainti after judgment
Due process is required before the and payment
commissioners make report Section 10, Rule 67. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment. —
Upon payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation
NPC v. Sps. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, 02 February 2007 fixed by the judgment, with legal interest thereon from the taking of the
NPC filed a complaint eminent domain and expropriation against the possession of the property, or after tender to him of the amount so fixed
properties of respondents. When the commissioners conducted an ocular and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon
inspection and fixed the value of the property at Php 10, 000 per square the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or
meter, it did not afford the parties to introduce their respective evidence. purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken
The SC ruled that such was a denial of their due process in relation to Sec immediate possession thereof under the provisions of section 2 hereof.
6-8 of Rule 67. If the defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court, or
decline to receive the amount tendered, the same shall be ordered to be
deposited in court and such deposit shall have the same effect as actual
payment thereof to the defendant or the person ultimately adjudged
entitled thereto.
42

adequate description, the particular property or interest therein

Entry not delayed; e ect by expropriated, and the nature of the public use or purpose for which it is
reversal
expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a certified copy of such
judgment shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which
the property is situated, and its effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff the
Section 11, Rule 67. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal. — The title to the real estate so described for such public use or purpose.
right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and
appropriate the same for public use or purpose shall not be delayed by
an appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate court determines that When former owners may seek the reversion
plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall be rendered of the property
ordering the Regional Trial Court to forthwith enforce the restoration to
the defendant of the possession of the property, and to determine the
damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, G.R. No.
the possession taken by the plaintiff. 176625, 25 February 2010
The taking of private property, consequent to the Government’s exercise of
its power of eminent domain, is always subject to the condition that the
Factors to consider in the determination of property be devoted to the specific public purpose for which it was taken.
damages Corollarily, if this particular purpose or intent is not initiated or not at all
pursued, and is peremptorily abandoned, then the former owners, if they so
desire, may seek the reversion of the property, subject to the return of the
Metropolitan Water District v. Sixto Delos Angeles, G.R. No. amount of just compensation received. In such a case, the exercise of the
L-33545, 07 March 1931 power of eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required
Metropolitan Water District filed for the expropriation of the land owned by factual justification.
respondents which was necessary in the construction of the Angat
Waterworks System. The disagreements were all about the fixing of the
value of the land. After 5 years, the SolGen decided that the land owned by Power of guardian in such
proceedings
the respondents are no longer necessary. The issue is whether the plaintiff
should be charged of damages for all the costs incurred by the defendants.
The court ruled that the Motion to Dismiss the expropriation proceedings
should be granted but the damages must be paid. Section 14, Rule 67. Power of guardian in such proceedings. — The
guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor or of a person judicially
(1) The loss resulting from the dispossession of the land; (2) the loss declared to be incompetent may, with the approval of the court first had,
resulting from the deprivation of the use and occupation of the land; (3) the do and perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting
expenses incurred during the pendency of this action, including attorney's the expropriation for public use or purpose of property belonging to such
fees, etc.; (4) the destruction of buildings, canals and growing crops at the minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent, which such minor
time of the occupation of the land by the petitioner; and (5) all of the or person judicially declared to be incompetent could do in such
damages of whatever kind or character which the defendants may be able proceedings if he were of age or competent.
to prove and which have been occasioned by virtue of the institution of the
present action. So ordered.
IX. Foreclosure of Real

Costs, by whom paid
Estate Mortgage [R68]
Section 12, Rule 67. Costs, by whom paid. — The fees of the
commissioners shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings.
All costs, except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, shall be
paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of the
Allegations for Complaint for
property and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of the Foreclosure
appeal shall be paid by the owner.
Section 1, Rule 68. Complaint in action for foreclosure. — In an action for
Recording judgment, and its e ect

the foreclosure of a mortgage or other encumbrance upon real estate,
the complaint shall set forth the date and due execution of the mortgage;
its assignments, if any; the names and residences of the mortgagor and
Section 13, Rule 67. Recording judgment, and its effect. — The judgment the mortgagee; a description of the mortgaged property; a statement of
entered in expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an the date of the note or other documentary evidence of the obligation
43


secured by the mortgage, the amount claimed to be unpaid thereon; and
A proceeding for judicial foreclosure of mortgage is an action quasi in rem. It
the names and residences of all persons having or claiming an interest
is based on a personal claim sought to be enforced against a specific
in the property subordinate in right to that of the holder of the mortgage,
property of the defendant. Its purpose is to have the property seized and
all of whom shall be made defendants in the action.
sold by court order to the end that the proceeds thereof be applied to the
payment of plaintiff's claim.
Concept of Foreclosure of Mortgage
Prescriptive Period of an Action for
Magna Financial Services Group v. Colarina, G.R. No. 158635, 09 Foreclosure of Mortgage
December 2005
Our Supreme Court in Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Millan held: “Undoubtedly Nunez v. GSIS Family Bank, G.R. No. 163988, 17 November 2005
the principal object of the above amendment (referring to Act 4122
An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage prescribes in ten years; Unless
amending Art. 1454, Civil Code of 1889) was to remedy the abuses
a demand is proven, one cannot be held in default.
committed in connection with the foreclosure of chattel mortgages. This
amendment prevents mortgagees from seizing the mortgaged property,
buying it at foreclosure sale for a low price and then bringing the suit Remedies of Secured Creditor
against the mortgagor for a deficiency judgment. The almost invariable
result of this procedure was that the mortgagor found himself minus the
property and still owing practically the full amount of his original
Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Icarangal, G.R. No. L-45350, 29 May
indebtedness.” 1939
It is true that this rule is founded on express statutory provisions to that
Article 1484, paragraph 3, provides that if the vendor has availed himself of effect. In this jurisdiction, section 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure
the right to foreclose the chattel mortgage, “he shall have no further action provides that a creditor holding a claim against the deceased, secured by a
against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the purchase price. mortgage or other collateral security, has to elect between enforcing such
Any agreement to the contrary shall be void.” In other words, in all security or abandoning it by presenting his claim before the committee and
proceedings for the foreclosure of chattel mortgages executed on chattels share in the general assets of the estate. Under this provision, it has been
which have been sold on the installment plan, the mortgagee is limited to uniformly held by this court that, if the plaintiff elects one of the two
the property included in the mortgage. remedies thus provided, he waives the other, and if he fails, he fails utterly.

Foreclosure may be effected either judicially or extrajudicially that is by
ordinary action or by foreclosure under power of sale contained in the
Sycamore Ventures Corp. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co, G.R.
mortgage. It is deemed that there has been foreclosure of the mortgage No; 173183, 18 November 2013
when all the proceedings of the foreclosure including the sale of the A secured creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a
property at public auction have been accomplished. personal action for the collection of the debt, a real action to judicially
foreclose the real estate mortgage, or an extrajudicial foreclosure of the
Judicial Foreclosure mortgage. The remedies, however, are alternative, not cumulative, and the
election or use of one remedy operate as a waiver of the others.

Ocampo v. Dimalanta, G.R. No. L-21011, 30 August 1967 In brief, Act No. 3135 recognizes the right of a creditor to foreclose a
Effect of confirmation of foreclosure sale: Confirmation of the sale of the mortgage upon the mortgagor’s failure to pay his/her obligation. In
mortgaged real property in judicial foreclosure proceedings cuts off all choosing this remedy, the creditor enforces his lien through the sale on
interests of the mortgagor in the property sold and vests them in the foreclosure of the mortgaged property. The proceeds of the sale will then be
purchaser. Confirmation retroacts to the date of the sale. The order of applied to the satisfaction of the debt. In case of a deficiency, the mortgagee
confirmation is a final order, not merely interlocutory. It is appealable. If no has the right to recover the deficiency resulting from the difference
appeal is taken therefrom, it becomes final and binding. between the amount obtained in the sale at public auction, and the
outstanding obligation at the time of the foreclosure proceedings.
Presumption as to notice of sale: Official duty is presumed to have been
regularly performed, It is presumed that a notice of sale in a foreclosure REQUISITES BEFORE CREDITOR CAN PROCEED TO AN EXTRAJUDICIAL
proceeding has been given. Lack of notice to the mortgagor should be FORECLOSURE:
proven by him. (1) There must have been the failure to pay the loan obtained from
the mortgagee-creditor;
Personal notice of the foreclosure sale to the mortgagor is not required. (2) The loan obligation must be secured by a real estate mortgage;
and
The plea that the mortgaged property was sold for an unconscionable price (3) The mortgagee-creditor has the right to foreclose the real estate
should be proven. mortgage either judicially or extrajudicially.
44


Act No. 3135 outlines the notice and publication requirements and the A registered mortgage lien is considered inseparable from the property
procedure for the extrajudicial foreclosure which constitute a condition inasmuch as it is a right in rem.”—The real nature of a mortgage is described
sine qua non for its validity. Specifically, Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the law in Article 2126 of the Civil Code, to wit: Art. 2126. The mortgage directly and
prescribe the formalities of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding. immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the
possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it
Act No. 3135 has no requirement for the determination of the mortgaged was constituted. Simply put, a mortgage is a real right, which follows the
properties’ appraisal value; What the law only provides are the property, even after subsequent transfers by the mortgagor. “A registered
requirements, procedure, venue and the mortgagor’s right to redeem the mortgage lien is considered inseparable from the property inasmuch as it is
property. a right in rem.”

We have held in a long line of cases that mere inadequacy of price per se The sale or transfer of the mortgaged property cannot affect or release the
will not invalidate a judicial sale of real property. It is only when the mortgage; thus the purchaser or transferee is necessarily bound to
inadequacy of the price is grossly shocking to the conscience or revolting to acknowledge and respect the encumbrance. In fact, under Article 2129 of
the mind, such that a reasonable man would neither directly nor indirectly the Civil Code, the mortgage on the property may still be foreclosed despite
be likely to consent to it, that the sale shall be declared null and void. This the transfer, viz.: Art. 2129. The creditor may claim from a third person in
rule, however, does not strictly apply in the case of extrajudicial foreclosure possession of the mortgaged property, the payment of the part of the credit
sales where the right of redemption is available. secured by the property which said third person possesses, in terms and
with the formalities which the law establishes.
Remedy Preliminary to E ect Foreclosure
Jurisdiction
Filinvest Credit Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 115902, 27 September 1995 Sec. 19 (1), BP 129. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
Replevin is, of course, the appropriate action to recover possession exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
preliminary to the extrajudicial foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. Filinvest (1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
did in fact institute such an action and obtained a writ of replevin. And, by pecuniary estimation;
filing it, Filinvest admitted that it cannot acquire possession of the
mortgaged vehicle in an orderly or peaceful manner. Accordingly, it should
have left the enforcement of the writ in accordance with Rule 60 of the Sec. 19 (2), BP 129. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
Rules of Court which it had voluntarily invoked. exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) XXX
It is not only the owner who can institute a replevin suit—a person “entitled (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
to the possession” of the property also can. real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand
Prohibition on Pactum Commissorium pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
Article 2088, NCC. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to
over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts,
the contrary is null and void. (1859a)
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
(3) XXX
DBP v. CA, G.R. No. 118342, 05 January 1998

The elements of pactum commissorium are as follows: (1) there should be a
property mortgaged by way of security for the payment of the principal Sec. 33 (3), BP 129. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
obligation, and (2) there should be a stipulation for automatic appropriation Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. –
by the creditor of the thing mortgaged in case of non-payment of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
principal obligation within the stipulated period. Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) XXX
(2) XXX
Garcia v. Villar, G.R. No. 158891, 27 June 2012 (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
The following are the elements of pactum commissorium: to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
(1) There should be a property mortgaged by way of security for the payment assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
of the principal obligation; and Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
(2) There should be a stipulation for automatic appropriation by the creditor where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
of the thing mortgaged in case of nonpayment of the principal obligation (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
within the stipulated period.
45

fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as Appeal is the remedy to assail judgment in
amended by R.A. No. 7691) judicial foreclosure
Venue Sps. Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, Inc., G.R. No. 144029, 19
September 2002
Sec. 1, Rule 4. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or
A party may be barred from raising questions of jurisdiction where estoppel
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
by laches has set in. In a general sense, estoppel by laches is failure or
tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein
neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do what, by
the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
exercising due diligence, ought to have been done earlier, warranting a

presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned to
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
defend it or has acquiesced to the correctness and fairness of its resolution.

involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (1[a], 2[a]a)
Proper remedy to seek reversal of judgment in an action for foreclosure of
real estate mortgage is not a petition for annulment of judgment but an
appeal from the judgment itself or from the order confirming the sale of the
Sec. 2, Rule 4. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be
foreclosed real estate.
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be Extrajudicial foreclosure and Judicial
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
foreclosure distinguished
Application of doctrine of estoppel Prudential Bank v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-51768, 04 September
1990
Limpin, Jr. v. IAC, G.R. No. 70987, 30 January 1987 In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the mortgagee has the right to
Once that authority is timely and properly invoked, it becomes the court’s recover the deficiency from the debtor, where the proceeds of the sale are
ministerial and mandatory function to direct execution. The authority lasts insufficient to pay the debt.
until the judgments are fully satisfied, subject only to the time limitations
prescribed therefor. With particular reference to the execution of a
judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action, the authority to direct and effect Equity of Redemption and Right of
the same exists until the confirmation of the foreclosure sale (and issuance Redemption
and implementation of the writ of possession), confirmation being the final
act which disposes of the case.
Limpin, Jr. v. IAC, G.R. No. 70987, 30 January 1987
[refer to case on page 33]
Judgment on Foreclosure for
Payment or Sale Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 128567, 01 September
2000
Sec. 2, Rule 68. Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale. — If upon RIGHT OF REDEMPTION EQUITY OF REDEMPTION
the trial in such action the court shall find the facts set forth in the
complaint to be true, it shall ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff Exists only in the case of the
Exists only in judicial foreclosure
upon the mortgage debt or obligation, including interest and other extrajudicial foreclosure of the
proceedings. HOWEVER, judicial
charges as approved by the court, and costs, and shall render judgment mortgage. Where a mortgage is
foreclosure proceedings may also
for the sum so found due and order that the same be paid to the court or foreclosed extrajudicially, Act
have the RIGHT OF REDEMPTION if
to the judgment obligee within a period of not less than ninety (90) days 3135 grants to the mortgagor the
the mortgagee is the PNB or other
nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days from the entry of right of redemption within one (1)
banking institutions.
judgment, and that in default of such payment the property shall be sold year from the registration of the
at public auction to satisfy the judgment. sheriff’s certificate of foreclosure Equity of redemption is simply the
sale. right of the mortgagor to
extinguish the mortgage and
No such right is recognized in a retain ownership of the property
judicial foreclosure except only by paying the secured debt within
46

where the mortgagee is the the 90-day period after the the full or partial payment of his obligation shall have the right within
Philippine National Bank or a bank judgment becomes final. one year after the sale of the real estate, to redeem the property by
or banking institution. paying the amount due under the mortgage deed, with interest thereon
at rate specified in the mortgage, and all the costs and expenses
incurred by the bank or institution from the sale and custody of said
Where a party failed to assert a right to redeem under the Section 78 of R.A. property less the income derived therefrom. However, the purchaser at
337 in several crucial stages of the proceedings invoke, it is too late in the the auction sale concerned whether in a judicial or extra-judicial
day for it to subsequently invoke such right in opposition to a motion for foreclosure shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of
issuance of a writ of possession after confirmation by the court of the such property immediately after the date of the confirmation of the
foreclosure sale and the registration of the certificate of sale. auction sale and administer the same in accordance with law. Any
petition in court to enjoin or restrain the conduct of foreclosure
Reckoning point of period of Redemption proceedings instituted pursuant to this provision shall be given due
course only upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed
under Act No. 3135 by the court conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the bank
may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the foreclosure
Malonzo, et al. v. Mariano, G.R. No. 53998, 31 May 1989 proceeding. Notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons whose property
is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have the
There being no dispute about the fact that no redemption had been made
right to redeem the property in accordance with this provision until, but
within one (1) year from registration of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale,
not after, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the
there can be no question about the absolute right of Banco Filipino, as
applicable Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than three
purchaser, to a writ of possession, or stated otherwise, the ministerial duty
(3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. Owners of property
of the Court to issue the writ, upon mere motion, without need of instituting
that has been sold in a foreclosure sale prior to the effectivity of this Act
a separate action for the purpose.
shall retain their redemption rights until their expiration.
Bernardez V. Reyes, G.R. No. 71832, 24 September 1991

Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No.
Well-settled is the rule that where a mortgage is foreclosed extrajudicially,
Act 3135 grants to the mortgagor the right of redemption within one (1) year
195540, 13 March 2013
from the registration of the sheriff’s certificate of foreclosure sale. Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 otherwise known as “The General Banking Law of
2000” which took effect on June 13, 2000, amended Act No. 3135.―Section
47 of R.A. No. 8791 otherwise known as “The General Banking Law of 2000”
E ect of Allowing Redemption after Expiration which took effect on June 13, 2000, amended Act No. 3135. Under the new
of One Year; Second mortgage merely takes law, an exception is thus made in the case of juridical persons which are
what is called an equity of redemption allowed to exercise the right of redemption only “until, but not after, the
registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale” and in no case more than
three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever comes first.
Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 98147, 08 March 1993
By accepting the redemption price after the statutory period for redemption Right of Redemption in Judicial Foreclosure
had expired, PNB is considered to have waived the one (1) year period within
which Ramirez could redeem the property.
Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. v. CA, supra.
Reckoning period of equity of redemption [refer to case in page 33]
Sps. Publico v. Bautista, G.R. No. 174096, 20 July 2010 Amount to be Paid as Redemption Price
Even if the trial court did not use the phrase “entry of judgment” as the Sec. 28, Rule 39. Time and manner of, and amounts payable on,
reckoning point for the redemption period, the Rules provide that the date of successive redemptions; notice to be given and filed. — The judgment
finality of the judgment shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the property from the purchaser,
at any time within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the
Rule on period of redemption certificate of sale, by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase,
with the per centum per month interest thereon in addition, up to the
Sec. 47, RA 8791. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. - In the event of time of redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or
foreclosure, whether judicially or extra-judicially, of any mortgage on taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase, and
real estate which is security for any loan or other credit accommodation interest on such last named amount at the same rate; and if the
granted, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property has been sold for purchaser be also a creditor having a prior lien to that of the
47

redemptioner, other than the judgment under which such purchase was

made, the amount of such other lien, with interest. When purchaser can enter and take
possession of property under RA 8791
Sec. 6, Act no. 3135. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made
under the special power hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his Mortgagee is a bank, quasi-bank, trust entity
successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of
said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to Sec. 47, RA 8791. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. - In the event of
the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may foreclosure, whether judicially or extra-judicially, of any mortgage on
redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after real estate which is security for any loan or other credit accommodation
the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the granted, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property has been sold for
provisions of sections four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and the full or partial payment of his obligation shall have the right within
sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are one year after the sale of the real estate, to redeem the property by
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. paying the amount due under the mortgage deed, with interest thereon
at rate specified in the mortgage, and all the costs and expenses
Requisites for Valid Redemption under property less the income derived therefrom. However, the purchaser at
Section 30, Rule 69 the auction sale concerned whether in a judicial or extra-judicial
foreclosure shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of
such property immediately after the date of the confirmation of the
Rosales v. Yboa, G.R. No. L-42282, 28 February 1983 auction sale and administer the same in accordance with law. Any
1) the redemption must be made within twelve (12) months from the time of petition in court to enjoin or restrain the conduct of foreclosure
the registration of the sale in the Office of the Register of Deeds proceedings instituted pursuant to this provision shall be given due
2) payment of the purchase price of the property involved, plus 1 % interest course only upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed
per month thereon, together with the amounts of assessments or taxes by the court conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the bank
thereon, if any, paid by the purchaser after the sale with the same rate of may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the foreclosure
interests; and proceeding. Notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons whose property
3) written notice of the redemption must be served on the officer who made is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have the
the sale and a duplicate filed with the Register of Deeds of the province. right to redeem the property in accordance with this provision until, but
not after, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the
Redemption and repurchase, distinguished applicable Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than three
(3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. Owners of property
that has been sold in a foreclosure sale prior to the effectivity of this Act
Sps. Robles v. CA, G.R. No. 128053, 10 June 2004 shall retain their redemption rights until their expiration. (78a)
REDEMPTION REPURCHASE
Mortgagee is not a bank, quasi-bank or trust entity
Redemption is by force of law; the Repurchase however of foreclosed
purchaser at public auction is property, after redemption period, Sec. 3(2), Rule 68.
bound to accept redemption. imposes no such obligation. After XXX
expiry, the purchaser may or may Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the expiration of
not resell the property but no law the period of redemption when allowed by law, the purchaser at the
will compel him to do so. And, he auction sale or last redemptioner, if any, shall be entitled to the
is not bound by the bid price; it is possession of the property unless a third party is actually holding the
entirely within within his same adversely to the judgment obligor. The said purchaser or last
discretion to set a higher price, for redemptioner may secure a writ of possession, upon motion, from the
after all, the property already court which ordered the foreclosure.
belongs to him as owner.

48

by the court conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the bank
Appealability of order denying motion to may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the foreclosure
quash writ of possession proceeding. Notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons whose property
is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have the
right to redeem the property in accordance with this provision until, but
Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc, G.R. No. 171386, 17 July not after, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the
2009 applicable Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than three
Under the law, the mortgagor may file a petition to set aside the sale and (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. Owners of property
writ of possession before the Regional Trial Court. that has been sold in a foreclosure sale prior to the effectivity of this Act
shall retain their redemption rights until their expiration. (78a)
Cases where the Court Withheld the Issuance

of Writ of Possession Requisites for a valid redemption
Cometa, et al. v. IAC, G.R. No. 69294, 30 June 1987 Heirs of Quisumbing v. PNB, G.R. No. 178242, 20 January 2009
(1) timely redemption or redemption by expiration date;
A writ of possession is complementary to a writ of execution, and in an
(2) good faith as always, meaning, the filing of the action must have been
execution sale, it is a consequence of a writ of execution; Issuance of a writ
for the sole purpose of determining the redemption price and not to stretch
of possession dependent on the valid execution of the procedural stages
the redemptive period indefinitely; and
preceding it.
(3) once the redemption price is determined within a reasonable time, the

redemptioner must make prompt payment in full.
If respondent acquired no interest in the property by virtue of the levy and
sale, he is not entitled to its possession.
Person who can exercise the right to redeem
Sulit v. CA, G.R. No. 119247, 17 February 1997
Sec. 27, Rule 39. Who may redeem real property so sold. — Real property
The general rule that mere inadequacy of price is not sufficient to set aside sold as provided in the last preceding section, or any part thereof sold
a foreclosure sale is based on the theory that the lesser the price the easier separately, may be redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the
it will be for the owner to effect the redemption. The same thing cannot be following persons:
said where the amount of the bid is in excess of the total mortgage debt (a) The judgment obligor; or his successor in interest in the
whole or any part of the property;
The court may withhold the issuance of the writ of possession on the ground (b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment
that it could work injustice because the petitioner might not be entitled to or mortgage on the property sold, or on some part thereof,
the same. subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold.
Such redeeming creditor is termed a redemptioner.
Bond to enjoin or restrain foreclosure
proceedings under RA 8791 Sec. 6, Act No. 3135. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made
under the special power hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his
Sec. 47, RA 8791. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. - In the event of successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of
foreclosure, whether judicially or extra-judicially, of any mortgage on said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to
real estate which is security for any loan or other credit accommodation the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may
granted, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property has been sold for redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after
the full or partial payment of his obligation shall have the right within the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the
one year after the sale of the real estate, to redeem the property by provisions of sections four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and
paying the amount due under the mortgage deed, with interest thereon sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are
at rate specified in the mortgage, and all the costs and expenses not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
property less the income derived therefrom. However, the purchaser at
the auction sale concerned whether in a judicial or extra-judicial De Castro v. IAC, G.R. No. 73859, 26 September 1988
foreclosure shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of The sale of a mortgaged property at public auction by reason of an
such property immediately after the date of the confirmation of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage is governed by Act No. 3135, as
auction sale and administer the same in accordance with law. Any amended by Act No. 4118. Under the cited law, a right of redemption is
petition in court to enjoin or restrain the conduct of foreclosure granted to the debtor, his successor-in-interest or any judicial creditor or
proceedings instituted pursuant to this provision shall be given due judgment creditor of said debtor or any person having a lien on the property
course only upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed
49

subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is
sold, within a period of one (1) year from the date of the sale.
Rule on back rentals during the period of
The matter of redemption is wholly statutory. Only such persons can redeem
redemption
from an execution sale as are authorized to do so by statute. In determining
whether a person is included within the terms of a redemption statute, the Bernardez V. Reyes, supra. [refer to previous case]
principle is stated to be that, if one is in privity in title with the mortgagor,
and he has such an interest that he would be a loser by the foreclosure, he
may redeem. Appraisal value of mortgaged properties not
material to foreclosure validity
Redemption is proper where made by debtors, grantee, or assignee for the
benefit of creditors, or assignee or trustee in insolvency proceedings.
Sycamore Ventures Corp. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.,

NOTE: WHO IS A SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST? supra. [refer to previous case]
1. A ‘successor-in-interest’ includes one to whom the debtor has
transferred his statutory right of redemption; Constitutionality of RA 8791
2. or one to whom the debtor has conveyed his interest in the
property for the purpose of redemption;
3. or one who succeeds to the interest of the debtor by operation Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank, supra.
of law; [refer to previous case]
4. or one or more joint debtors who were joint owners of the
property sold;
5. or the wife as regards her husband’s homestead by reason of Exemption of family home on forced sale and
the fact that some portion of her husband’s title passes to her.” right of redemption

The right of the purchaser at a foreclosure sale is merely inchoate until after
the period of redemption has expired without the right being exercised.
Sps. Fortaleza v. Sps. Lapitan, G.R. No. 178288, 15 August 2012
As a rule, the family home is exempt from execution, forced sale or
attachment. However, Article 155(3) of the Family Code explicitly allows the
forced sale of a family home “for debts secured by mortgages on the
premises before or after such constitution.”
Sale of Mortgaged Property

Sec. 3, Rule 68. Sale of mortgaged property; effect. — When the
defendant, after being directed to do so as provided in the next
preceding section, fails to pay the amount of the judgment within the
period specified therein, the court, upon motion, shall order the property
to be sold in the manner and under the provisions of Rule 39 and other
regulations governing sales of real estate under execution. Such sale
shall not affect the rights of persons holding prior encumbrances upon
the property or a part thereof, and when confirmed by an order of the
court, also upon motion, it shall operate to divest the rights in the
property of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the
purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be allowed by
law.

Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the expiration of
the period of redemption when allowed by law, the purchaser at the
auction sale or last redemptioner, if any, shall be entitled to the
possession of the property unless a third party is actually holding the
same adversely to the judgment obligor. The said purchaser or last
redemptioner may secure a writ of possession, upon motion, from the
court which ordered the foreclosure.
50

with interest from the fruits, returning to the antichretic debtor the balance,

Notice and hearing required for judicial if any, after deducting the expenses. The fact that Marcelo Enriquez
consented and asked the bank to take charge of managing said property
confirmation of foreclosure sale does not entitle the latter to appropriate to itself the fruits thereof unless
the former has expressly waived his right thereto.
Rural Bank of Oroquieta v. CA, G.R. No. L-53466, 10 November
1980 Gardner v. CA, G.R. No. L-31340
In judicial confirmation of auction sale, a hearing with notice to mortgaged As a general rule, the mortgagee who is in possession of the mortgaged
debtor, mortgaged creditor, and purchaser at the auction sale is property and introduces improvements therein is not entitled to
indispensable. A hearing should be held for the confirmation of the sale. The reimbursement for the value thereof upon the redemption of the mortgage,
mortgagor should be notified of the sale. The mortgagor may still redeem for, according to Art. 2125, par. 2, N.C.C., “the persons in whose favor the law
the mortgaged lot after the rendition of the order confirming the sale which establishes a mortgage have no other right than to demand execution and
is void for lack of hearing and notice to the mortgagor. the recording of the document in which the mortgage is formalized.

To hold otherwise would render redemption oppressive and onerous to the
Rule on issuance of Writ of Possession owner-redemptioner, if not nugatory and inoperative, for all that a scheming
mortgagee interested in owning the land would do is to saddle the land with
Sps. Fortaleza v. Sps. Lapitan, supra. [refer to previous case] so much improvements that the owner will find himself financially
incapable of redeeming the mortgage. The value of the improvements will
have to be added to the principal indebtedness thereby driving the debtor
Prescription of the right to a writ of deeper and deeper into debt until he is finally “improved out” of his
possession property.
Sps. Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 168523, 09 Foreclosure of equitable mortgage governed
March 2011 by Section 2 and 3 of Rule 68
We have held before that the purchaser’s right “to request for the issuance
of the writ of possession of the land never prescribes.” Sps. Rosales v. Sps. Alfonso, G.R. No. 137792, 12 August 2003
An equitable mortgage as “one which although lacking in some formality, or
Right of a mortgagee who is in possession of form or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute, nevertheless
the mortgaged property reveals the intention of the parties to charge real property as security for a
debt, and contains nothing impossible or contrary to law.” An equitable
mortgage is not different from a real estate mortgage, and the lien created
Diego v. Fernando, G.R. No. L-15128, 25 August 1960 thereby ought not to be defeated by requiring compliance with the
If a contract of loan with security does not stipulate the payment of interest formalities necessary to the validity of a voluntary real estate mortgage.
like in the case at bar, and possession of the mortgaged property is Since the parties’ transaction is an equitable mortgage and that the trial
delivered to the mortgagee in order that the latter may gather its fruits, but court ordered its foreclosure, execution of judgment is governed by
without stating that said fruits are to be applied to the payment of interest, Sections 2 and 3, Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
if any, and afterwards that of the principal, the contract is a mortgage and
not antichresis But, to repeat, no such right of redemption exists in case of judicial
foreclosure of a mortgage if the mortgagee is not the PNB or a bank or
banking institution. In such a case, the foreclosure sale, ‘when confirmed by
Enriquez v. PNB, G.R. No. L-33584, 15 December 1930 an order of the court, x x x shall operate to divest the rights of all the parties
The judicial sale of the two parcels of land under execution, having been to the action and to vest their rights in the purchaser.’ There then exists only
held null and void, they reverted to the same juridical condition in which what is known as the equity of redemption. This is simply the right of the
they were before said sale. When the Philippine National Bank redeemed defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of
them from the Government, it was acting as judgment creditor. Under the property by paying the secured debt within the 90-day period after the
section 377 of the Administrative Code, the bank acquired a lien on them by judgment becomes final, in accordance with Rule 68, or even after the
virtue of said redemption, and the Government was divested of the foreclosure sale but prior to its confirmation.
ownership thereof which reverted in the original owner, Marcelo Enriquez.
The Philippine National Bank, then, cannot be said to have held the property
by virtue of the redemption in behalf of the Government, but as a creditor
with a lien thereon. Since the Philippine National Bank took possession of
the two parcels of land with the consent of the debtor, Marcelo Enriquez, it
held the land as an antichretic creditor with the right to collect the credit
51

order more to be sold. But if the property cannot be sold in portions
Right of Redemption Not Recognized in a without prejudice to the parties, the whole shall be ordered to be sold in
Judicial Foreclosure the first instance, and the entire debt and costs shall be paid, if the
proceeds of the sale be sufficient therefor, there being a rebate of
interest where such rebate is proper.
Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. v. CA, supra. [refer to previous case]
Deficiency Judgment, defined

Disposition Proceeds of Sale
Sec. 6, Rule 68. Deficiency judgment. — If upon the sale of any real
Sec. 4, Rule 68. Disposition of proceeds of sale. — The amount realized property as provided in the next preceding section there be a balance
from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property shall, after due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale, the court,
deducting the costs of the sale, be paid to the person foreclosing the upon motion, shall render judgment against the defendant for any such
mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or residue, after paying balance for which, by the record of the case, he may be personally liable
off the mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior to the plaintiff, upon which execution may issue immediately if the
encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be ascertained by the balance is all due at the time of the rendition of the judgment; otherwise;
court, or if there be no such encumbrancers or there be a balance or the plaintiff shall be entitled to execution at such time as the balance
residue after payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly remaining becomes due under the terms of the original contract, which
authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it. time shall be stated in the judgment.
Summary of distribution of proceeds of sale Phil. Bank of Commerce v. de Vera, G.R. No. L-18816, 29
December 1962
1. Cost of sale
2. Claim of foreclosing person Under the Rules of Court (Sec. 6, Rule 70) upon the sale of any real property,
3. Claims of junior encumbrances under an order for a sale to satisfy a mortgage or other encumbrances
4. Balance, if any, paid to mortgagor thereon, if there be a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds
of the sale, the court, upon motion, should render a judgment against the
defendant for any such balance for which, by the record of the case, he may
Mortgagee’s duty to return any surplus in the be personally liable to the plaintiff. It is true that this refers to a judicial
selling price to the mortgagor foreclosure, but the underlying principle is the same, that the mortgage is
but a security and not a satisfaction of indebtedness.
Sulit v. CA, G.R. No. 119247, 17 February 1997
Prudential Bank v. Martinez, G.R. No. 51768, 14 September 1990
Surplus money, in case of a foreclosure sale, gains much significance where
there are junior encumbrancers on the mortgaged property. Jurisprudence Where the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay the debt, the
has it that when there are several liens upon the premises, the surplus mortgagee has the right to recover the deficiency from the debtor.
money must be applied to their discharge in the order of their priority. A
junior mortgagee may have his rights protected by an appropriate decree as Prescription of an action to recover deficiency
to the application of the surplus, if there be any, after satisfying the prior
mortgage. His lien on the land is transferred to the surplus fund. And a
senior mortgagee, realizing more than the amount of his debt on a Quirino Gonzales Logging Concessionaire v. CA, G.R. No. 126568,
foreclosure sale, is regarded as a trustee for the benefit of junior 30 April 2003
encumbrancers. The Civil Code provides that an action upon a written contract, an obligation
created by law, and a judgment must be brought within ten years from the
How Sale is to Proceed in Case the time the right of action accrues. x x x Prescription of actions is interrupted
when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial
Debt is Not All Due demand by the creditors, and when, there is any written acknowledgment of
the debt by the debtor.

Sec. 5, Rule 68. How sale to proceed in case the debt is not all due. — If A mortgage action prescribes after ten years from the time the right of
the debt for which the mortgage or encumbrance was held is not all due action accrued.
as provided in the judgment as soon as a sufficient portion of the
property has been sold to pay the total amount and the costs due, the
sale shall terminate; and afterwards as often as more becomes due for
principal or interest and other valid charges, the court may, on motion,
52

When no deficiency allowed Right to recover deficiency from debtor under

Sec. 1484, NCC. In a contract of sale of personal property the price of
Act No.3135
which is payable in installments, the vendor may exercise any of
the following remedies: Prudential Bank v. Martinez, supra.
(1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail The court has held in several cases that in extrajudicial foreclosure of
to pay; mortgage, where the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay the debt,
(2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee's failure to pay cover the mortgagee has the right to recover the deficiency from the debtor. There
two or more installments; is nothing in Act 3135 which provides for the right to the deficiency but there
(3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, if one is also no prohibition to such. Under the Mortgage Law, the mortgagee has
has been constituted, should the vendee's failure to pay the right to claim for the deficiency resulting from the price obtained in the
cover two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no sale of the real property at public auction and the outstanding obligation at
further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid the time of the foreclosure proceedings. While it is true that this provision
balance of the price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be applies only to judicial foreclosure, the same principle also applies to
void. extrajudicial foreclosure. Absence any provision in the Act 3135 prohibiting
the right to recover deficiency, it cannot be concluded that the creditor
loses his right given him under the Mortgage Law and recognized in the
Sec. 7, Rule 86. Mortgage debt due from estate- A creditor holding a Rules of Court, to take action for the recovery of any unpaid balance on the
claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral principal obligation, simply because he has chosen to foreclose his
security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the mortgage extra-judicially pursuant to a special power of attorney given him
manner provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of the by the mortgagor in the mortgage contract.
assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon
his security, by action in court, making the executor or administrator a
party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale Proof of deficiency claim necessary
of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure
or other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may claim his PNB v. Sps. Rocamora, G.R. No. 164549, 18 September 2009
deficiency judgment in the manner provided in the preceding section; or
he may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone, and foreclose the As in any claim for payment of money, a mortgagee must be able to prove
same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations, and in the basis for the deficiency judgment it seeks. Right only arises when the
that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor, and shall receive no proceeds are ascertained to be insufficient, thus the amount of the
share in the distribution of the other assets of the estate; but nothing obligation prior foreclosure and proceeds of the foreclosure are material.
herein contained shall prohibit the executor or administrator from
redeeming the property mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for In this case, PNB failed to prove the claimed deficiency, its own testimonial
which it is held as security, under the direction of the court, if the court and documentary evidence contradicted one another, the former shows an
shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of the estate that such obligation for P250k while the latter shows only P206k which amount was
redemption shall be made. confirmed by PNB’s own witness. In any case, SC’s own computation of the
amounts involved does not add up to P206k. PNB consistently was unable to
provide a detailed and credible accounting of the claimed deficiency, what
Note: Stipulations of upset price or “tipo” is null and void. is clear is that payment plus proceeds amounted to P107k and the claimed
P206k consisted of interest and penalties. Thus, PNB cannot claim the
Rule on deficiency in foreclosure of mortgage deficiency.
out of a settlement of Estate

Prescriptive period for filing deficiency of
PNB v. CA, G.R. No. 121597, 29 June 2001 extrajudicial foreclosure
PNB may no longer pursue the remaining balance through a civil action. Sec. 1142, NCC. A mortgage action prescribes after ten years.
Since the case involves a foreclosure of mortgage arising out of a
settlement of estate, Sec. 7, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court applies. It must be
pointed out that PNB’s cited cases involve ordinary debts secured by a Sec. 1144, NCC. The following actions must be brought within ten years
mortgage. The case at bar involves a foreclosure of mortgage arising out of from the time the right of action accrues:
a settlement of estate, wherein the administrator mortgaged a property (1) Upon a written contract;
belonging to the estate of the decedent, pursuant to an authority given by (2) Upon an obligation created by law;
the probate court. As the Court of Appeals correctly stated, the Rules of Court (3) Upon a judgment.
on Special Proceedings comes into play decisively.

53

Registration Paguyo v. Gatbunton, A.M. No. P-06-2135, 28 March 2007

Proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage are
governed by Act 3135, as amended, entitled An Act To Regulate The Sale of
Sec. 7, Rule 68. Registration. — A certified copy of the final order of the
Property Under Special Powers Inserted In or Annexed to Real Estate
court confirming the sale shall be registered in the registry of deeds. If
Mortgages. Under Section 1 of the Act, extrajudicial foreclosure sales are
no right of redemption exists, the certificate of title in the name of the
proper only when so provided under a special power inserted in or attached
mortgagor shall be cancelled, and a new one issued in the name of the
to the mortgage contract.
purchaser.

While the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in this case contains no special
Where a right of redemption exists, the certificate of title in the name of
power authorizing the Garcia spouses as mortgagees to extrajudicially
the mortgagor shall not be cancelled, but the certificate of sale and the
foreclose the mortgage in case the Paguyos defaulted in their loan
order confirming the sale shall be registered and a brief memorandum
obligation, nonetheless, the respondent sheriff cannot be held
thereof made by the registrar of deeds upon the certificate of title. In the
administratively liable for proceeding with the extrajudicial foreclosure of
event the property is redeemed, the deed of redemption shall be
the mortgage in question.
registered with the registry of deeds, and a brief memorandum thereof
shall be made by the registrar of deeds on said certificate of title.
Foreclosure of real estate mortgage
If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of sale executed by the
sheriff in favor of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale shall be
DBP v. Zaragosa, G.R. No. L-23493, 23 August 1978
registered with the registry of deeds; whereupon the certificate of title
in the name of the mortgagor shall be cancelled and a new one issued in The Zaragozas obtained a loan from DBP which was secured by a REM.
the name of the purchaser. Mortgage was eventually extrajudically foreclosed due to default in
payment. DBP was claiming that proceeds from the sale was deficient to
cover the indebtedness and that additional interests must be paid during
Applicability of Sections 31, 32 and the period from notice of sale to actual sale. The Court ruled that DBP can
claim both. In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage when the proceeds of
34 of Rule 39 the sale is insufficient to cover the debt, mortgagee is entitled to claim the
deficiency from the debtor.
Sec. 8, Rule 68. Applicability of other provisions. — The provisions of
sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall be applicable to the judicial Landrito, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 133079, 09 August 2005
foreclosure of real estate mortgages under this Rule insofar as the The 1-year redemption period should be counted not from the date of
former are not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the foreclosure sale, but from the time the certificate of sale is registered with
provisions of the latter. the Register of Deeds. Here, the sheriff’s certificate of sale was registered
on October 29, 1993. Since October 29, 1994 fell on a Saturday, petitioners
Act no. 3135 - An Act to Regulate had until the following working day, 31 October 1994, within which to
exercise their right of redemption.
the Sale of Property under Special
The complaint, however, was instituted by Spouses Landrito beyond the
Powers Inserted in or Annexed to 1-year redemption period. The spouses even acknowledged that their
complaint was filed 11 days after the redemption period had already expired.
Real Estate Mortgages
Three Types of Sale Arising From Failure to Pay
Extrajudicial foreclosure when proper Mortgage Debt; Levy Requirement Not Mandated by
Act No. 3135 but by Rule 39
Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sales are Proper provided
The Abaca Corp. of the Philippines v. Garcia and CA, G.R. No.
under a Special Power
118408, 14 May 1997
Sec. 1, Act no. 3135. When a sale is made under a special power inserted There are three (3) types of sales arising from failure to pay a mortgage
in or attached to any real-estate mortgage hereafter made as security for debt, namely,
the payment of money or the fulfillment of any other obligation, the (1) the extrajudicial foreclosure sale,
provisions of the following election shall govern as to the manner in (2) the judicial foreclosure sale and
which the sale and redemption shall be effected, whether or not (3) the ordinary execution sale.
provision for the same is made in the power.
54

These in turn are governed by three (3) different laws. Act No. 3135 governs

extrajudicial foreclosure sale, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court deals with
judicial foreclosure sale, while Rule 39 covers ordinary execution sale. Act Notice and Publication Requirement
No. 3135 or An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers
Sec. 3, Act no. 3135. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale
Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgage applies to the case at bar.
for not less than twenty days in at least three public places of the
municipality or city where the property is situated, and if such property
Power to foreclose extrajudicially survives the death is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be
of the mortgagor published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city.
Perez v. PNB, G.R. No. L-21813, 30 July 1966
The power to foreclose is not an ordinary agency that contemplates Sheri s duty to cause publication of the Notice of
exclusively the representation of the principal by the agent, but is primarily sheri ’s sale
an authority conferred upon the mortgagee for the latter’s own protection. It
is an ancillary stipulation supported by the same cause or consideration for Paguyo v. Gatbunton, supra.
the mortgage and forms an essential and inseparable part of that bilateral
agreement. That power survives the death of the mortgagor. Republication in the manner prescribed by Act No. 3135 is necessary for the
validity of a postponed extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Another publication is
Where the mortgagee failed to give notice of the foreclosure to the debtor’s required in case the auction sale is rescheduled, and the absence of such
widow and heirs, thus preventing them from blocking the foreclosure republication invalidates the foreclosure sale.
through seasonable payment and impeding their effectuating a seasonable
redemption, justice and equity would be served by permitting them to Publication, therefore, is required to give the foreclosure sale a reasonably
redeem the foreclosed property within a reasonable time, by paying the wide publicity such that those interested might attend the public sale. To
capital and interest of the indebtedness up to the time of redemption, plus allow the parties to waive this jurisdictional requirement would result in
foreclosure and useful expenses, less any rents and profits obtained by the converting into a private sale what ought to be a public auction.
mortgagee from and after the same entered into its possession.
Here, the only Notice of Sheriffs Sale which was published in Sierra Pacific
News refers to the scheduled sheriffs sale on April 11, 2003. Nowhere is
Where Sale Must be Made there any record to show that a new Notice of Sheriffs Sale for the December
1, 2003 auction sale was actually published. Likewise, while respondent
Sec. 2, Act no. 3135. Said sale cannot be made legally outside of the sheriff explained the reason for his deferment of the auction sale on the
province in which the property sold is situated; and in case the place originally scheduled date, none whatsoever was proffered by him regarding
within said province in which the sale is to be made is subject to his failure to publish a new notice for the rescheduled date of the auction.
stipulation, such sale shall be made in said place or in the municipal
building of the municipality in which the property or part thereof is Thus, respondent sheriff is held to have been inefficient and incompetent in
situated. the performance of his official duties, an offense punishable under Section
52(A)(16) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936) with suspension
E ect of stipulation that lacks exclusivity of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense.
Heirs of the late Sps. Maglasang v. Manila Banking Corp, G.R. No.
Republication of Notice of Sheri ’s sale of a
171206, 23 September 2013
postponed extrajudicial sale
There were no provision in the mortgage that the property should be sold
exclusively in the place indicated in the mortgage. The stipulation under the
real estate mortgage executed by Sps. Maglasang which fixed the place of
DBP v. CA, G.R. No. 125838, 10 June 2003
the foreclosure sale at Tacloban City lacks words of exclusivity which would Republication in the manner prescribed under Act. 3135 is necessary for the
bar any other acceptable fora wherein the said sale may be conducted. validity of a postponed extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Another publication is
required in case the auction sale is rescheduled and the absence of such
Since there is no qualifying or restrictive words to the exclusivity, the republication invalidates the foreclosure. The Court also noted that parties
stipulated place should be considered as an additional venue and not a have no right to waive the publication requirements in Act 3135. The form of
limiting venue. Act 3135 can be applied in this case. Section 2 of Act No. 3135 the notice of extrajudicial sale is now prescribed in Circular No. 7-2002
allows the foreclosure sale to be done within the province where the issued by the Office of the Court Administrator. The last paragraph of the
property to be sold is situated. When the property was sold in Ormoc City, it prescribed notice of sale allows the holding of a rescheduled auction sale
substantially complied with the provision of Act 3135 since it is within the without reposting or republication of the notice. However, the rescheduled
territorial jurisdiction of the province of Leyte. auction sale will only be valid if the rescheduled date of the auction is
clearly specified in the prior notice of sale. The absence of this information
55

in the prior notice of sale will render the rescheduled auction sale void for
debtor-mortgagor need not be personally served a copy of
lack of reposting and republication. If the notice contains this particular
the notice of the extra-judicial foreclosure.
information, whether or not the parties agreed to such rescheduled date,
j. For real estate mortgages covering loans not exceeding
there is no more need for the reposting or republication of the notice of the
P100,000.00, exclusive of interests due and unpaid, granted
rescheduled auction sale.
by rural banks (RA No. 7353, Sec. 6) or thrift banks (RA No.
7906, Sec. 18),publication in a newspaper shall be dispensed
Form of notice of Extrajudicial Sale under Sec. with, it being sufficient that the notices of foreclosure are
4, Circular No. 7-2002 posted for a period of sixty (60) days immediately preceding
the public auction in the most conspicuous areas of the
municipal building, the municipal public market, the rural
Notice for real estate mortgages covering loans not bank, the barangay hall, and the barangay public market, if
exceeding P 100, 000.00; Notice of foreclosure of a any, where the land mortgaged is situated. Proof of
publication shall be accomplished by an affidavit of the
Chattel Mortgage Sheriff and shall be attached to the records of the case.
k. (2) In case of foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, post the
Sec. 4 (2)[b], OCA Circular No. 7-2002. The Sheriff to whom the
notice for at least ten (10) days in two (2) or more public
application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage was raffled shall
places in the municipality where the mortgagor resides or
do the following:
where the property is situated (Sec. 14, Act No. 1508, as
a. Prepare a Notice of Extra-judicial Sale using the following
amended).
form:
b. “NOTICE OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL SALE”
c. “Upon extra-judicial petition for sale under Act 3135 / 1508 Section 3 of Act No. 3135 does not require notice to
filed __________________ against (name and address of mortgagors
Mortgator/s) to satisfy the mortgage indebtedness which as
of ___________ amounts to P _________________, excluding
penalties, charges, attorney’s fees and expenses of Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 90369, 31 October 1990
foreclosure, the undersigned or his duly authorized deputy The prior publication of the subject extrajudicial foreclosure sale in a
will sell at public auction on (date of sale) _______________ at newspaper of general circulation operates as a constructive notice to the
10:00 A.M. or soon thereafter at the main entrance of the whole world, including petitioners, of the sale.
___________ (place of sale) to the highest bidder, for cash or
manager’s check and in Philippine Currency, the following There is no provision of law which requires that when said extrajudicial sale
property with all its improvements, to wit: is conducted special notice to petitioners as alleged successors-in-interest
d. ”(Description of Property)” of the mortgagors should be made. Section 3 of Act No. 3135 governing
e. “All sealed bids must be submitted to the undersigned on the extrajudicial foreclosure sales provides as follows:
above stated time and date.”
f. “In the event the public auction should not take place on the Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by notices of the sale for not less than twenty
said date, it shall be held on _______________, days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the
_______________ without further notice.” property is situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred
g. ________________ (date) pesos, such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three
h. “SHERIFF” consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
i. (1) In case of foreclosure of real estate mortgage, cause the municipality or city.
publication of the notice of sale by posting it for not less
than twenty (20) days in at least three (3) public places in The foregoing provision of law does not require any particular notice to the
the municipality or city where the property is situated and if mortgagors much less to their alleged successors-in-interest like the
such property is worth more than four hundred (P400.00) petitioners herein.
pesos, by having such notice published once a week for at
least three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the municipality or city (Sec. 3, Act No. 3135, as Parties to mortgage contract can agree on personal
amended). The Executive Judge shall designate a regular notice to the mortgagor
working day and definite time each week during which said
notice shall be distributed personally by him for publication Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Wong, G.R. No. 120859, 26
to qualified newspapers or periodicals as defined in Sec. 1 of
P.D. No. 1079, which distribution shall be effected by raffle
June 2001
(A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC, Oct. 16, 2001). Unless otherwise Sec 3 of Act No. 3134 requires the posting of notices of sale in three public
stipulated by the parties to the mortgage contract, the places, and (2) the publication of the same in a newspaper of general
circulation. Personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessary.

56

Nevertheless, the parties to the mortgage contract are not precluded from
exacting additional requirements. In this case, Wong and MBTC agreed that:
all correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters,
Certificate of posting is not indispensable for validity
summonses, subpoenas, or notifications of any judicial or extra-judicial of a foreclosure sale
action shall be sent to the MORTGAGOR at 40-42 Aldeguer St. Iloilo City, or at
the address that may hereafter be given in writing by the MORTGAGOR to the DBP v. CA, G.R. No. 125838, supra. [refer to previous case]
MORTGAGEE.

Precisely, the purpose of the foregoing stipulation is to apprise Wong of any Purpose of notice and publication
action which MBTC might take on the subject property, thru according him
the opportunity to safeguard his rights. When MBTC failed to send the notice Ouano v. CA, supra. [refer to previous case]
of foreclosure sale to Wong, he committed a contractual breach sufficient to
render the foreclosure sale on November 23, 1981 null and void.
Olizon v. CA, G.R. No. 107075, 01 September 1994
The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and
Burden of proving non-compliance with publication condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the
on party alleging the same sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a
sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and
Philippine Savings Bank v. Sps. Geronimo, G.R. No. 170241, 19 mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice..
April 2010
It is settled that for the purpose of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the Time of sale of public auction
party alleging non-compliance with the requisite publication has the
burden of proving the same. Sec. 4, Act 3135. The sale shall be made at public auction, between the
hours or nine in the morning and four in the afternoon; and shall be
under the direction of the sheriff of the province, the justice or auxiliary
Statutory requirements governing publication must justice of the peace of the municipality in which such sale has to be
be strictly complied with made, or a notary public of said municipality, who shall be entitled to
collect a fee of five pesos each day of actual work performed, in addition
to his expenses.
Tambunting v. CA, G.R. No. L-48278, 08 November 1988
The rule is that statutory provisions governing publication of notice of
mortgage foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and that even Sale at anytime between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm
slight deviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale at regardless of duration is valid
least voidable.
PNB v. Cabtingan, G.R. No. 167058, 09 July 2008
Parties cannot waive posting and publication Section 4 of Act 3135 provides that the Sale must take place between the
requirements of Act No.3135 hours of nine in the morning and four in the afternoon. The word “between”
ordinarily means “in the time interval that separates.” Thus, “between the
Ouano v. CA, G.R. No. 129279, 04 March 2003 hours of nine in the morning and four in the afternoon” merely provides a
time frame within which an auction sale may be conducted. Therefore, a
The parties have absolutely no right to waive the posting and publication sale at public auction held within the intervening period provided by law
requirements of Act No. 3135. (i.e., at any time from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.) is valid, without regard to the
duration or length of time it took the auctioneer to conduct the proceedings.
Notice and publication requirement under PD 1079,
Act 3135, as amended Procedure of extrajudicial sale under OCA Circular
No. 7-2002 in relation to Act 3135 and Act No. 1508
Fortune Motors v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co, G.R. No.
Secs. 5, OCA Circular 7-2002. Conduct of the extra-judicial foreclosure
115068, 28 November 1996
sale –
To be a newspaper of general circulation, it is enough that it is published for a. The bidding shall be made through sealed bids which must
the dissemination of local news and general information, that it has a bona be submitted to the Sheriff who shall conduct the sale
fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and that it is published at between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. of the date of the
regular intervals. auction (Act 3135, Sec. 4). The property mortgaged shall be
awarded to the party submitting the highest bid and, in case
57

of a tie, an open bidding shall be conducted between the property is redeemed, the Clerk of Court shall assess the redemptioner’s
highest bidders. Payments of the winning bid shall be made fee as provided in Section 7 (k), Rule 141, as amended. If the property is
either in cash or in manager’s check, in Philippine currency, not redeemed, the Clerk of Court shall, as a requisite for the issuance of
within five (5) days from notice. the final Deed of Sale, assess the highest bidder the amount of P300.00
b. The sale must be made in the province in which the real as provided in Section 20(d), Rule 141, as amended.
property is situated and, in case the place within the said
province in which the sale is to be made is the subject of
stipulation, such sale shall be made in said place in the Consequences of non-payment of full amount as
municipal building of the municipality in which the property highest bidder
or part thereof is situated (Act No. 3135, as amended, Sec. 2);
in case of a chattel mortgage, the sale shall be made at a Sulit v. CA, supra. [refer to previous case]
place in the municipality where the mortgagor resides or
where the property is situated (Sec. 14, Act No. 1508, as
amended). Gross inadequacy of price will not nullify the sale

The Abaca Corp. of the Philippines v. Garcia and CA, supra.
Sec. 6 OCA Circular 7-2002. After the sale, the Clerk of Courts shall collect [refer to previous case]
the appropriate fees pursuant to Sec. 9(1), Rule 141, as amended by A.M
No. 00-2-01-SC, computed on the basis of the amount actually collected
by him, which fee shall not exceed P100,000.00 (A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, Bidders
March 1, 2001, 2[d]). The amount paid shall not be subject to a refund
even if the foreclosed property is subsequently redeemed. Sec. 5, Act 3135. At any sale, the creditor, trustee, or other persons
authorized to act for the creditor, may participate in the bidding and

purchase under the same conditions as any other bidder, unless the
Sec. 7 OCA Circular 7-2002. In case of foreclosure under Act No. 1508, the contrary has been expressly provided in the mortgage or trust deed
Sheriff shall, within thirty (30) days from the sale, prepare a return and under which the sale is made.
file the same in the Office of the Registry of Deeds where the mortgage is
recorded.
Those who can redeem and period to redeem

Sec. 8, OCA Circular 7-2002. The Sheriff or the notary public who Sec. 6, Act 3135
conducted the sale shall report the name/s of the bidder/s to the Clerk of Sec. 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the
Court. special power hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successors in
interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor, or
any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or
Sec. 9, OCA Circular 7-2002. Upon presentation of the appropriate deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem the same at
receipts, the Clerk of Court shall issue and sign the Certificate of Sale, any time within the term of one year from and after the date of the sale;
subject to the approval of the Executive Judge or, in the latter’s absence, and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections
the Vice-Executive Judge. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of Sale, four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of
the Clerk of court shall, in extra-judicial foreclosure conducted under the the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not inconsistent with
direction of the sheriff, collect P300.00 as provided in Section 20(d), the provisions of this Act.
Rule 141, as amended, and in extra-judicial foreclosure sales conducted
under the direction of a notary public, collect the appropriate fees
The Law of Redemption of Mortgage Property
pursuant to Rule 141, §20(e), which amount shall not exceed P100,000.00
(Minute Res., A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, August 7, 2001).
Landrito v. CA, G.R. No. 133079, 09 August 2005

The one-year redemption period is counted not from the date of foreclosure
Sec. 10, OCA Circular 7-2002. After the Certificate of Sale has been sale but from the time the certificate of sale is registered with the Register
issued, the Clerk of Court shall keep the complete records for a period of of Deeds.
one (1) year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale with
the Register of Deeds, after which the records shall be archived.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, juridical persons whose property is sold
Unionbank v. CA, G.R. No. 134068, 25 June 2001
pursuant to an extra-judicial foreclosure shall have the right to redeem The one-year period is actually to be reckoned from the date of the
the property until, but not later than, the registration of the certificate of registration of the sale.
foreclosure sale which in no case shall be more than three (3) months
after foreclosure, whichever is earlier (R.A. 8791, Section 47). In case the
58

Four hundred and ninety-six; but the order of possession shall continue

One (1) year period reckoned from registration of in effect during the pendency of the appeal.
certificate of sale
Sec. 8 of Act No. 3135 finds no application when
DBP v. Gagarani, G.R. No. 172248, 17 September 2008 redemption period expired
If the land is mortgaged to parties other than rural banks, the mortgagor
may redeem the property within one (1) year from the registration of the PNB v. Sanao Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 153951, 29 August 2005
certificate of sale pursuant to Act No. 3135. Development Bank of the
Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale, as well as the
consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be determined in a subsequent
Period of right of redemption of juridical persons in proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No.
extra-judicial foreclosure 4118. Such question is not to be raised as a justification for opposing the
issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the proceeding is
ex parte. The law is clear that the purchaser must first be placed in
Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank, supra. possession.
When to take possession and how 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 20659 29 September
2014
Sec. 7, Act 3135. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the
purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or As the CA correctly pointed out, a debtor may avail of the remedy under
place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him Section 8 of Act No. 3135 only after the purchaser has obtained possession
possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an of the property. What it missed, however, is that this rule is applicable only
amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve to a unique factual situation — when the writ of possession sought to be
months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was cancelled was issued during the redemption period. In Ong v. Court of
made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the Appeals, 333 SCRA 189 (2000), where this rule was laid down, the
requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and mortgagors sought the recall of the writ of possession that was issued
filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral during the one-year redemption period. Section 8 of Act No. 3135 finds no
proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in application when the redemption period has expired without the debtor
the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section exercising his right, and the purchaser in the foreclosure sale has already
one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other consolidated his ownership over the property and moved for the issuance of
real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office the writ of possession.
of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each
case the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect
the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and
Redemption after possession given to
fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by purchaser
Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall,
upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, Sec. 9, Act 3135. When the property is redeemed after the purchaser has
addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is been given possession, the redeemer shall be entitled to deduct from
situated, who shall execute said order immediately. the price of redemption any rentals that said purchaser may have
collected in case the property or any part thereof was rented; if the
purchaser occupied the property as his own dwelling, it being town
Setting aside of sale and writ of possession property, or used it gainfully, it being rural property, the redeemer may
deduct from the price the interest of one per centum per month provided
Sec. 8, Act 3135. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession for in section four hundred and sixty-five of the Code of Civil Procedure.
was requested, but not later than thirty days after the purchaser was
given possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of
possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him, because X. Partition [R69]
the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in accordance
with the provisions hereof, and the court shall take cognizance of this
petition in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in
section one hundred and twelve of Act Numbered Four hundred and
Complaint in action of partition of
ninety-six; and if it finds the complaint of the debtor justified, it shall
dispose in his favor of all or part of the bond furnished by the person
real estate
who obtained possession. Either of the parties may appeal from the
Sec. 1, Rule 69. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A person
order of the judge in accordance with section fourteen of Act Numbered
having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as
59

provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent Even though forbidden by the testator, the co-ownership terminates
of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which when any of the causes for which partnership is dissolved takes place,
partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons or when the court finds for compelling reasons that division should be
interested in the property. ordered, upon petition of one of the co-heirs. (1051a)

Partition and its two phases Article 1084, NCC. Voluntary heirs upon whom some condition has been
imposed cannot demand a partition until the condition has been
Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 192383, 04 December 2013 fulfilled; but the other co-heirs may demand it by giving sufficient
security for the rights which the former may have in case the condition
In partition, the court must first determine the existence of co-ownership. should be complied with, and until it is known that the condition has not
The action will not lie if the plaintiff has no proprietary interest in the been fulfilled or can never be complied with, the partition shall be
subject property. Indeed, the rules require him to set forth in his complaint understood to be provisional.
the nature and extent of his title to the property. It would be premature to
order partition until the question of ownership is first definitely resolved.
Jurisdiction
Substantive law on partition Section 19, BP 129. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned
pecuniary estimation;
in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real

property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain
property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for
period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty
extended by a new agreement.
thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and

unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not
is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
exceed twenty years.
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.

Section 33, BP 129. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. –
co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
the co-ownership. (400a)
Trial Courts shall exercise:

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
Article 495. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article, the
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
co-owners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned in
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
which it is intended. But the co-ownership may be terminated in
where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
accordance with article 498. (401a)
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
Article 496, NCC. Partition may be made by agreement between the
parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the
Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. Venue

Section 1, Rule 4.Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or
Article 1083, NCC. Every co-heir has a right to demand the division of the possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
estate unless the testator should have expressly forbidden its partition, tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein
in which case the period of indivision shall not exceed twenty years as the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
provided in article 494. This power of the testator to prohibit division
applies to the legitime. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
60


Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be Two ways by which partition can take place
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs under Rule 69
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff. Figuracion-Gerilla v.vda. de Figuracion, G.R. No. 154322 22
August 2006
E ect when partition is incidental to the main Partition is premature when ownership of the lot is still in dispute.
In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable
action that is incapable of pecuniary to the estate, partition is inappropriate
estimation
Russell v. Vestil, G.R. No. 119347, 17 March 1999

Commissioners to make partition
While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just when parties fail to agree
incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the
document; It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case Sec. 3, Rule 69
is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint Section 3. Commissioners to make partition when parties fail to agree.
and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is — If the parties are unable to agree upon the partition, the court shall
entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as
commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to set off to the
Genesis Investment Inc. v. Heirs of Ebarasabal, G.R. No. 181622, plaintiff and to each party in interest such part and proportion of the
property as the court shall direct.
20 November 2013
While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just
incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the
document; It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case
is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint The two stages in every action for partition
and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is under Rule 69
entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.
Dadizon v. Bernadas, G.R. No. 172367, 05 June 2009

Order for partition and partition by In partition proceedings, reference to commissioners is required as a
agreement thereunder
procedural step in the action and is not discretionary on the part of the
court. Dadizon vs. Bernades, 588 SCRA 678, G.R. No. 172367 June 5, 2009
Sec. 2, Rule 69. Order for partition and partition by agreement
thereunder. — If after the trial the court finds that the plaintiff has the Oath and duties of commissioners
right thereto, it shall order the partition of the real estate among all the
parties in interest. Thereupon the parties may, if they are able to agree, Sec. 4, Rule 69. Oath and duties of commissioners. — Before making such
make the partition among themselves by proper instruments of partition; the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they
conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon by will faithfully perform their duties as commissioners, which oath shall
all the parties, and such partition, together with the order of the court be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case. In making the
confirming the same, shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the partition, the commissioners shall view and examine the real estate,
place in which the property is situated. after due notice to the parties to attend at such view and examination,
and shall hear the parties as to their preference in the portion of the
A final order decreeing partition and accounting may be appealed by any property to be set apart to them and the comparative value thereof, and
party aggrieved thereby. shall set apart the same to the parties in lots or parcels as will be most
advantageous and equitable, having due regard to the improvements,
situation and quality of the different parts thereof.
61

Interpretation of notice under Section 4, Rule Action of the court upon commissioner’s
69 report
Sec. 7, Rule 69. Action of the court upon commissioners report. — Upon
Heirs of Cesar MarasigAN v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 156078 14 March the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding
2008 section or even before the expiration of such period but after the
An action for partition comprises two phases: first, the trial court, after interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their
determining that a co-ownership in fact exists and that partition is proper, statement of agreement therewith the court may, upon hearing, accept
issues an order for partition; and, second, the trial court promulgates a the report and render judgment in accordance therewith, or, for cause
decision confirming the sketch and subdivision of the properties submitted shown recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of
by the parties (if the parties reach an agreement) or by the appointed facts; or set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or accept
commissioners (if the parties fail to agree), as the case may be. the report in part and reject it in part; and may make such order and
render such judgment as shall effectuate a fair and just partition of the
real estate, or of its value, if assigned or sold as above provided,
Assignment or sale real estate by between the several owners thereof.
commissioners Nature of judgment in partition

Sec. 5, Rule 69. Assignment or sale of real estate by commissioners. —
When it is made to appear to the commissioners that the real state, or a De Mesa v. CA, G.R. No. 109387, 25 April 1994
portion thereof, cannot be divided without prejudice to the interests of Jurisprudentially entrenched is the rule that a judgment ordering partition
the parties, the court may order it assigned to one of the parties willing with damages is final and duly appealable, notwithstanding the fact, which
to take the same, provided he pays to the other parties such amount as petitioner seeks to capitalize on, that further proceedings will still have to
the commissioners deem equitable, unless one of the interested parties take place in the trial court. De Mesa vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 773, G.R.
asks that the property be sold instead of being so assigned, in which No. 109387 April 25, 1994
case the court shall order the commissioners to sell the real estate at
public sale under such conditions and within such time as the court may
determine.

Accounting for rent and profits in
action for partition
Interpretation of Section 5, Rule 69 in Sec. 8, Rule 69. Accounting for rent and profits in action for partition. — In
relation to Arts. 494,49 and 498 of the Civil an action for partition in accordance with this Rule, a party shall recover
Code from another his just share of rents and profits received by such other
party from the real estate in question, and the judgment shall include an
allowance for such rents and profits.
Heirs of Cesar Marasigan v. Marasigan, supra.
Report of commissioners; Power of guardian in such

proceedings not binding until proceedings
confirmed Sec. 9, Rule 69. Power of guardian in such proceedings. — The guardian
or guardian ad litem of a minor or person judicially declared to be
incompetent may, with the approval of the court first had, do and
Sec. 6, Rule 69. Report of commissioners; proceedings not binding until
perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting the
confirmed. — The commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to
partition of real estate, which the minor or person judicially declared to
the court of all their proceedings as to the partition, or the assignment of
be incompetent could do in partition proceedings if he were of age or
real estate to one of the parties, or the sale of the same. Upon the filing
competent.
of such report, the clerk of court shall serve copies thereof on all the
interested parties with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days within
which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire. No Related provisions under the Family Code Arts. 220,
proceeding had before or conducted by the commissioners and 222, 225, Family Code
rendered judgment thereon.

62

Section 220, FC. The parents and those exercising parental authority a stranger, or a parent has remarried, in which case the ordinary rules on
shall have with the respect to their unemancipated children on wards guardianship shall apply.
the following rights and duties:
(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and
instruct them by right precept and good example, and to Costs and expenses to be taxed and
collected
provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
(2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel,
companionship and understanding;
(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, Sec. 10, Rule 69. Costs and expenses to be taxed and collected. — The
inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, court shall equitably tax and apportion between or among the parties
self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in the costs and expenses which accrue in the action, including the
civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties compensation of the commissioners, having regard to the interests of
of citizenship; the parties, and execution may issue therefor as in other cases.
(4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational
materials, supervise their activities, recreation and
association with others, protect them from bad company,
and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their
The judgment and its e ect; copy to
health, studies and morals; be recorded in registry of deeds
(5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
(6) To demand from them respect and obedience; Sec. 11, Rule 69. The judgment and its effect; copy to be recorded in
(7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under registry of deeds. — If actual partition of property is made, the judgment
the circumstances; and shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description,
(8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon the particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party, and the
parents and guardians. effect of the judgment shall be to vest in each party to the action in
severalty the portion of the real estate assigned to him. If the whole
property is assigned to one of the parties upon his paying to the others
Section 222, FC. The courts may appoint a guardian of the child's the sum or sums ordered by the court, the judgment shall state the fact
property or a guardian ad litem when the best interests of the child so of such payment and of the assignment of the real estate to the party
requires. making the payment, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest in
the party making the payment the whole of the real estate free from any
interest on the part of the other parties to the action. If the property is
Section 225, FC. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal sold and the sale confirmed by the court, the judgment shall state the
guardianship over the property of the unemancipated common child name of the purchaser or purchasers and a definite description of the
without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of disagreement, parcels of real estate sold to each purchaser, and the effect of the
the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the judgment shall be to vest the real estate in the purchaser or purchasers
contrary. making the payment or payments, free from the claims of any of the
parties to the action. A certified copy of the judgment shall in either case
Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the real estate
exceeds P50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a is situated, and the expenses of such recording shall be taxed as part of
bond in such amount as the court may determine, but not less than ten the costs of the action.
per centum(10%) of the value of the property or annual income, to
guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general
guardians.
Period to file appeal and multiple appeal in partition
A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper
court of the place where the child resides, or, if the child resides in a
Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260, 22 December
foreign country, in the proper court of the place where the property or
any part thereof is situated. 1989
The Supreme Court therefore holds that in actions of eminent domain, as in
The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding in actions for partition, since no less than two (2) appeals are allowed by law,
which all incidents and issues regarding the performance of the the period for appeal from an order of condemnation is 30 days counted
obligations referred to in the second paragraph of this Article shall be from notice of order and not the ordinary period of 15 days prescribed for
heard and resolved. actions in general, to the effect that in “appeals in special proceedings in
accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases wherein
The ordinary rules on guardianship shall be merely suppletory except multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) days,
when the child is under substitute parental authority, or the guardian is a record of appeal being required.”
63


In this case, where a single complaint was filed against several defendants
having individual, separate interests, and a separate trial was held relative X. Forcible Entry and Unlawful
to one of said defendants after which a final order or judgment was
rendered on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim against that particular
Detainer [R70]
defendant, it is obvious that in the event of an appeal from that separate
judgment, the original record cannot and should not be sent up to the
appellate tribunal. The record will have to stay with the trial court because it Who may institute proceedings and
will still try the case as regards the other defendants. "In an action against
several defendants, the court may, when a several judgment is proper,
when
render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed
against the others. " In lieu of the original record, a record on appeal will Section 1, Rule 70. Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
perforce have to be prepared and transmitted to the appellate court. More section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by
than one appeal being permitted in this case, therefore, "the period of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor,
appeal shall be thirty (30) days, a record of appeal being required as vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or
provided by the Implementing Rules in relation to Section 39 of B.P. Blg. 129. building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the
right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or
the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee,
Neither paramount rights nor or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper
amicable partition a ected by Rule Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully
withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons
69 claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together
with damages and costs.
Sec. 12, Rule 69. Neither paramount rights nor amicable partition
affected by this Rule. — Nothing in this Rule contained shall be construed
so as to prejudice, defeat, or destroy the right or title of any person
Three kinds of actions to judicially recover
claiming the real estate involved by title under any other person, or by possession of real property
title paramount to the title of the parties among whom the partition may
have been made, nor so as to restrict or prevent persons holding real Bokingo v. CA, GR No. 161739, May 4, 2006
estate jointly or in common from making an amicable partition thereof
by agreement and suitable instruments of conveyance without recourse There are three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession and these
to an action. are distinguished in this wise:

What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory
Substantive law action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion
reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de
Article 499, NCC. The partition of a thing owned in common shall not facto. An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with forcible
prejudice third persons, who shall retain the rights of mortgage, entry are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover
servitude or any other real rights belonging to them before the division possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment,
was made. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession
co-ownership shall also remain in force, notwithstanding the partition. and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which
includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to
judicially recover possession.
Partition of personal property
Distinct and di erent causes of action under
Sec. 13, Rule 69. Partition of personal property. — The provisions of this
Rule shall apply to partitions of estates composed of personal property, Sec. 1, Rule 70
or of both real and personal property, in so far as the same may be
applicable. Sarmienta v. Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc., GR No.
182953, 11 October 2010
There are two entirely distinct and different causes of action under the
aforequoted rule, to wit: (1) a case for forcible entry, which is an action to
recover possession of a property from the defendant whose occupation
thereof is illegal from the beginning as he acquired possession by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (2) a case for unlawful detainer,
64

which is an action for recovery of possession from the defendant whose
possession of the property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract Exceptions
(express or implied) with the plaintiff, but became illegal when he
1. Specific rule or law provides otherwise
continued his possession despite the termination of his right thereunder.
2. Parties stipulated in writing as to venue
Sps. Munoz v. CA, GR No. 102693, 23 September 1992

The summary actions for unlawful detainer and forcible entry may be
Venue on unlawful detainer
distinguished from each other, as follows:
a. In forcible entry, the possession of the land by the defendant Union Bank of the Philippines v. Maunlad Homes, Inc., GR No.
is unlawful from the beginning as he acquires possession 190071, 15 August 2012
thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; while
While Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court states that ejectment actions
in unlawful detainer, the possession of the defendant is
shall be filed in "the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein
inceptively lawful but it becomes illegal by reason of the
the real property involved . . . is situated[,]" Section 4 of the same Rule
termination of his right to the possession of the property under
provides that the rule shall not apply "[w]here the parties have validly
his contract with the plaintiff .
agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
b. In forcible entry, the law does not require a previous demand
thereof." Precisely, in this case, the parties provided for a different venue. In
for the defendant to vacate the premises; but in unlawful
Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, etc., et al., the Court upheld the validity of a
detainer, the plaintiff must first make such demand, which is
stipulation in a contract providing for a venue for ejectment actions other
jurisdictional in nature.
than that stated in the Rules of Court.
c). In forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior
physical possession of the premises until he was deprived
thereof by the defendant; in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff need Jurisdiction of actions to judicially recover
not have been in prior physical possession.
d. In forcible entry, the one-year period is generally counted possession of real property
from the date of actual entry on the land; in unlawful detainer,
from the date of last demand. Dela Cruz v. CA, GR No. 139442, 06 December 2006
Thus exclusive, original jurisdiction over ejectment proceedings (accion
David v. Cordova, GR No. 152992, 28 July 2005 interdictal) is lodged with the first level courts. This is clarified in Section 1,
The facts upon which an action for forcible entry can be brought are Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that embraces an action for
specially mentioned in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Said section forcible entry (detentacion), where one is deprived of physical possession
likewise defines an action for unlawful detainer. In forcible entry of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
(desahucio), one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by stealth. In actions for forcible entry, three (3) requisites have to be met for
means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful the municipal trial court to acquire jurisdiction. First, the plaintiffs must
detainer (detentacion), one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after allege their prior physical possession of the property. Second, they must
the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any also assert that they were deprived of possession either by force,
contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Third, the action must be filed
the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior within one (1) year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of
possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, the possession was originally their deprivation of physical possession of the land or building.
lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to
possess, hence the issue of rightful possession is decisive for, in such The other kind of ejectment proceeding is unlawful detainer (desahucio),
action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of where one unlawfully withholds possession of the subject property after
action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession. the expiration or termination of the right to possess. Here, the issue of
rightful possession is the one decisive; for in such action, the defendant is
the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the
Venue of Ejectment Cases termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession. 7 The
essential requisites of unlawful detainer are: (1) the fact of lease by virtue of
Section 1, Rule 4. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or a contract express or implied; (2) the expiration or termination of the
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and possessor's right to hold possession; (3) withholding by the lessee of the
tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein possession of the land or building after expiration or termination of the
the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. right to possession; (4) letter of demand upon lessee to pay the rental or
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises; and (5) the
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property action must be filed within one (1) year from date of last demand received
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. by the defendant.
65

Nunez v. Siteas Phoenix Solutions, G.R. No. 180542, 12 April 2010 What constitutes su cient allegations for
Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession unlawful detainer
or the right to possession of the property involved, there can be no
gainsaying the fact that ejectment cases fall within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts by express provision of Section 33 Cabrera v. Getaruela, GR No. 164213, 21 April 2009
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of It is settled that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for
Civil Procedure. In addition to being conferred by law, however, a court's unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by
complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether or contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
therein. In much the same way that it cannot be made to depend on the plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of
exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties, jurisdiction possession;
cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration. property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate
The rule is no different in actions for forcible entry where the following the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
requisites are essential for the MeTC's acquisition of jurisdiction over the
case, viz.: (a) the plaintiffs must allege their prior physical possession of Contrary to petitioners' contention, the issue in this case is not the
the property; (b) they must assert that they were deprived of possession ownership of the lots. Thus:
either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and, (c) the action
must be filed within one (1) year from the time the owners or legal In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is
possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the physical or material possession of the property involved,
property. As it is not essential that the complaint should expressly employ independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.
the language of the law, it is considered a sufficient compliance of the However, where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts
requirement where the facts are set up showing that dispossession took may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine
place under said conditions. who has the right to possess the property. (Pascual v. Coronel)
What to allege in forcible entry and unlawful What constitutes su cient allegations for
detainer cases forcible entry
Sarmienta v. Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc., supra Dela Cruz v. CA, supra.
In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint, and prove, that In actions for forcible entry, three (3) requisites have to be met for the
he was in prior physical possession of the property in dispute until he was municipal trial court to acquire jurisdiction. First, the plaintiffs must allege
deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the means provided in Section 1, their prior physical possession of the property. Second, they must also
Rule 70 of the Rules either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. assert that they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation,
In unlawful detainer, there must be an allegation in the complaint of how threat, strategy, or stealth. Third, the action must be filed within one (1) year
the possession of defendant started or continued, that is, by virtue of lease from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of
or any contract, and that defendant holds possession of the land or building physical possession of the land or building.
"after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue
of any contract, express or implied."

Sps. del Rosario v. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc, GR No. 170575,
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it 08 June 2011
recites the following: (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant "The words 'by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth' shall include
was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such every situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully enter
possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the upon real property and exclude another, who has had prior possession,
termination of the latter’s right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant therefrom."
remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one year from the last demand on "The foundation of the action is really the forcible exclusion of the original
defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for possessor by a person who has entered without right."
ejectment.
"The act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor
therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and
this is all that is necessary."
66

who has the right to possess the property. The adjudication is, however,
"'Stealth,' on the other hand, is defined as any secret, sly, or clandestine act merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the
to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within residence of same parties involving title to the property.|
another without permission," while strategy connotes the employment of
machinations or artifices to gain possession of the subject property. It should be stressed that unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits, under
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,are designed to summarily restore physical
Sarona v. Villegas, G.R. no. L-22984, March 7, 1968 possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or
forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties'
A close assessment of the law and the concept of the word "tolerance" opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. These
shows that such tolerance must be present right from the start of actions are intended to avoid disruption of public order by those who would
possession sought to be recovered, to categorize a cause of action as one of take the law in their hands purportedly to enforce their claimed right of
unlawful detainer, not of forcible entry. possession. In these cases, the issue is pure physical or de facto
possession, and pronouncements made on questions of ownership are
If entry is illegal, then the cause of action which may be filed against the provisional in nature. The provisional determination of ownership in the
intruder within one year therefrom is forcible entry. If, on the other hand, ejectment case cannot be clothed with finality.
entry is legal but thereafter possession became illegal, the case is one of
illegal detainer which must be filed within one year from the date of last
demand. Issue of possession in the concept of an
owner distinguished in forcible entry
It is well to remember that after the lapse of the one year period, the suit
must be started in the Court of First Instance in an accion publiciana.
Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, GR No. 174191
Sps. Munoz v. CA, supra We agree that ownership carries the right of possession, but the possession
contemplated by the concept of ownership is not exactly the same as the
Possession of the tenant is possession of the owner. possession in issue in a forcible entry case. Possession in forcible entry
suits refers only to possession de facto, or actual or material possession,
The failure of the private respondent to allege the time when unlawful and not possession flowing out of ownership; these are different legal
deprivation took place is fatal because this will determine the start of the concepts for which the law provides different remedies for recovery of
counting of the one year period for the filing of the summary action of possession. As we explained in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, and again in the
forcible entry. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible more recent cases of Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, De Grano v. Lacaba, and
entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was Lagazo v. Soriano, the word "possession" in forcible entry suits refers to
effected or how and when dispossession started, the action should either nothing more than prior physical possession or possession de facto, not
be accion publiciana or reivindicatoria in the Court of First Instance (now possession de jure Title is not the issue, and the absence of it "is not a
Regional Trial Court). ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment
case."
Matters to be resolved in the action for
forcible entry Complaint based on possession by tolerance
is a specie of unlawful detainer
Sps. Munoz v. CA, supra
The questions to be resolved in an action for forcible entry are: First, who Jose v. Alfuerto, G.R. No. 169380, 26 November 2012
had actual possession over the piece of real property? Second, was the The Court has consistently adopted this position: tolerance or permission
possessor ousted therefrom within one year from the filing of the complaint must have been present at the beginning of possession; if the possession
by force, threat, strategy or stealth? And lastly, does the plaintiff ask for the was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would not be
restoration of his possession? the proper remedy and should be dismissed.
Matters to be resolved in the action for Dela Cruz v. CA, supra.
unlawful detainer ...an ejectment complaint based on possession by tolerance of the owner,
like the Tan Te complaint, is a specie of unlawful detainer cases.
Barrientos v. Rapal, GR No. 169594, 20 July 2011

In Calubayan v. Pascual, a case usually cited in subsequent decisions on
In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or ejectment, the concept of possession by tolerance was further elucidated
material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of as follows:
ownership by any of the parties. Where the issue of ownership is raised by
any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to determine
67

It has been held that a person who occupies the land of another The underlying reasons for the above rulings were that the actions in the
at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract Regional Trial Court did not involve physical or de facto possession, and, on
between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that not a few occasions, that the case in the Regional Trial Court was merely a
he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ploy to delay disposition of the ejectment proceeding, or that the issues
ejectment is the proper remedy against them. presented in the former could quite as easily be set up as defenses in the
ejectment action and there resolved.
Santos v. Ayon, G.R. No. 137013, 06 May 2005
It bears stressing that possession by tolerance is lawful, but such Parties to an ejectment action
possession becomes unlawful when the possessor by tolerance refuses to
vacate upon demand made by the owner. Our ruling in Roxas vs. Court of Catedrilla v. Lauron, GR No. 179011, 15 April 2013
Appeals is applicable in this case: "A person who occupies the land of
another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract Petitioner can file the action for ejectment without impleading his
between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will co-owners.

vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the In ejectment cases, the only issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the
proper remedy against him." physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of
any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants. In an action for
Non-abatement of ejectment actions; Cases unlawful detainer, the real party-in-interest as party-defendant is the
person who is in possession of the property without the benefit of any
that do not constitute litis pendentia contract of lease and only upon the tolerance and generosity of its owner.
su cient for dismissal / suspension of Well settled is the rule that a person who occupies the land of another at the
latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is
ejectment actions bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand,
failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against
Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. v. CA, GR No. 97637, 10 April 1992 him. His status is analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of
lease has expired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the
The relevant precedents are hereunder outlined.
owner.

1. Injunction suits instituted in the RTC by defendants in ejectment actions
in the municipal trial courts or other courts of the first level do not abate the Tiac v. Natividad, GR No. L-1457, 26 January 1948
latter; and neither do proceedings on consignation of rentals. Except as otherwise provided by statute, an action of forcible entry and
detainer may be maintained only against one in possession at the
2. An "accion publiciana" does not suspend an ejectment suit against the commencement of the action, and not against one who does not in fact hold
plaintiff in the former. the land. This rule does not require that the lessee or the person who
committed the forcible entry should be made a party even though his
3. A "writ of possession case" where ownership is concededly the principal whereabouts be unknown.
issue before the Regional Trial Court does not preclude nor bar the
execution of the judgment in an unlawful detainer suit where the only issue
involved is the material possession or possession de facto of the premises.
Vda. de Salazar v. CA, GR No. 121510, 23 Nov 1995
The need for substitution of heirs is based on the right to due process
4. An action for quieting of title to property is not a bar to an ejectment suit accruing to every party in any proceeding.
involving the same property.
[However, formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs
5. Suits for specific performance with damages do not affect ejectment themselves voluntarily appeared, participated in the case and presented
actions (e.g., to compel renewal of a lease contract). evidence in defense of deceased defendant. Attending the case at bench,
after all, are these particular circumstances which negate petitioner's
6. An action for reformation of instrument (e.g., from deed of absolute sale belated and seemingly ostensible claim of violation of her rights to due
to one of sale with pacto de retro) does not suspend an ejectment suit process.||
between the same parties.
Ejectment, being an action involving recovery of real property, is a real
7. An action for reconveyance of property or "accion reivindicatoria" also action which as such, is not extinguished by the defendant's death. There is
has no effect on ejectment suits regarding the same property. no dispute that an ejectment case survives the death of a party, which death
did not extinguish the deceased's civil personality. More significantly, a
8. Neither do suits for annulment of sale, or title, or document affecting judgment in an ejectment case is conclusive between the parties and their
property operate to abate ejectment actions respecting the same property. successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action.
68

Parties bound by judgment in ejectment suit E ect of owners’ demand to vacate and
tenants’ refusal to do so
Oro Can Enterprises v. CA, GR No. 128743, 29 Nov 1999
It is well-settled that a judgment in an ejectment suit is binding not only Siapian v. CA, GR No. 111928, 01 March 2000
upon the defendants in the suit but also against those not made parties For the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit, two requisites must concur:
thereto, if they are: a) trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant (1) there must be failure to pay rent or comply with the conditions of the
fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; b) guests or lease, and (2) there must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate
other occupants of the premises with the permission of the defendant; c) within the periods specified in Section 2, Rule 70 [of the 1964 Rules of Court]
transferees pendente lite; d) sublessees; e) co-lessee; or f) members of the namely 15 days in case of lands and 5 days in case of buildings.
family, relatives and other privies of the defendant.
The first requisite refers to the existence of the cause of action for unlawful
detainer while the second refers to the jurisdictional requirement of
Lessor to proceed against lessee demand in order that said cause of action may be pursued. It is therefore
clear that before the lessor may institute such action, he must make a
only after demand demand upon the lessee to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease
and to vacate the premises. It is the owner's demand for the tenant to
Section 2, Rule 70. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. vacate the premises and the tenant's refusal to do so which makes unlawful
— Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lesser shall be the withholding of possession. Such refusal violates the owner's right of
commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of possession giving rise to an action for unlawful detainer.
the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written
notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises if no Casilan v. Tomasi, GR No. L-16574, 28 February 1964
person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after We have gone over the allegations of the complaint and found nothing there
fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of to the effect that a demand had been made upon the defendants to vacate
buildings. the premises in question. What allegation there was refers to a demand for
payment of the rentals agreed upon. Such allegation, according to the
consistent ruling of this Court, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
When demand would not be necessary Justice of the Peace Court in an action of unlawful detainer.
according to substantive law
Lesaca v. Cuevas, GR No. L-484419, 27 October 1983
Article 1669, NCC. If the lease was made for a determinate time, it ceases [An] alternative demand to pay the increased rental or to vacate the
upon the day fixed, without the need of a demand. premises is sufficient under the law to enable the lessor to bring an
ejectment case because as stated earlier, the lessee lost all his rights to
remain in the premises upon the expiration of the lease contract... There is,
Article 1670, NCC. If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue therefore, no need for a more definite and unconditional demand to vacate
enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the as he had no legal right to remain in the premises.
lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously
been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for
the period of the original contract, but for the time established in
Cebu Automatic Motors, Inc. v. GMC, GR No. 151168, 25 August
articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be 2010
revived.
Another issue raised, relating to demand, is whether GMC sent CAMI the
required demand letter. Invoking Article 1169 of the Civil Code, CAMI
Article 1687, NCC. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is principally contends that it could not be considered in default because GMC
understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; never sent a proper demand letter.
from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is
weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even CAMI, in invoking Article 1169, apparently overlooked that what is involved is
though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, not a mere mora or delay in the performance of a generic obligation to give
the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has or to do that would eventually lead to the remedy of rescission or specific
occupied the premises for over one year. If the rent is weekly, the courts performance. What is involved in the case is a contract of lease and the twin
may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in remedies of rescission and judicial ejectment after either the failure to pay
possession for over six months. In case of daily rent, the courts may also rent or to comply with the conditions of the lease. This situation calls for the
fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one application, not of Article 1169 of the Civil Code but, of Article 1673 in relation
month. to Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Article 1673 states:

69

Article 1673. The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of

the following causes:
Demand to vacate not jurisdictional when
xxx xxx xxx ground is the expiration of term of lease

(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the
contract; . . .
Tubiano v. Razo, GR No. 132598 13 July 2000
Demand to vacate is not a jurisdictional requirement when the ground for

ejectment is expiration of term of the lease contract. Notice/demand to
Based on this provision, a lessor may judicially eject (and thereby likewise
vacate serves no other purpose than to make known the lessor's intention
rescind the contract of lease) the lessee if the latter violates any of the
to terminate the lease contract. Accordingly, even if petitioner did not
conditions agreed upon in the lease contract. Implemented in accordance
receive the September 7, 1994 notice of private respondent, the ejectment
with Section 2, Rule 70, the lessor is not required to first bring an action for
case filed against petitioner cannot be deemed to be premature considering
rescission, but may ask the court to do so and simultaneously seek the
that even as early as August 1994, petitioner was already informed that
ejectment of the lessee in a single action for unlawful detainer.
private respondent will no longer renew the subject lease contract.
When demand to vacate is a prerequisite in The one-year period to bring an action for
an action for unlawful detainer forcible entry
Lanuza v. Munoz, GR No. 147372, 27 May 2004
An examination of Section 2, Rule 70, readily shows that the rule is
Nunez v. Slteas Phoenix Solutions, Inc., supra.
The one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is
applicable only where there is a lessor-lessee relationship under a lease
generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land, except that
contract, which does not exist in this case. Further, the rule applies only in
when the entry is through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the
instances where the grounds relied upon for ejectment are non-payment of
time the plaintiff learned thereof.
rentals or violation of the conditions of the lease, as the case may be. In
those cited situations, notice to vacate is crucial. A demand is a
pre-requisite to an action for unlawful detainer, when the action is based on The one-year to bring an action unlawful
“failure to pay rent due or to comply with the conditions of his lease,” but
not where the action is to terminate the lease because of the expiration of detainer, when counted
its term.
Republic v. Sunvar Realty Devt Corp, GR No. 194880 20 June
In any event, even assuming arguendo that a demand to vacate was 2012
required for Civil Case No. 3749 to prosper, we find that the respondent’s Contrary to the reasoning of the RTC, the one-year period to file an unlawful
allegations in her complaint constitute sufficient compliance with the detainer case is not counted from the expiration of the lease contract...
jurisdictional requirement concerning previous demand to establish a Indeed, the last demand for petitioners to vacate is the reckoning period for
cause of action for unlawful detainer... [an] allegation in an original determining the one-year period in an action for unlawful detainer. "Such
complaint for illegal detainer that in spite of demands made by the plaintiff one year period should be counted from the date of plaintiff's last demand
the defendants had refused to restore the property, is sufficient compliance on defendant to vacate the real property, because only upon the lapse of
with the jurisdictional requirement of previous demand. that period does the possession become unlawful." (Estate of Soledad
Manantan v. Somera)
Republic v. Sunvar Realty Devt Corp, GR No. 194880, 20 June
2012 In case several demands to vacate are made, the period is reckoned from
Unless otherwise stipulated, the action of the lessor shall commence only the date of the last demand.
after a demand to pay or to comply with the conditions of the lease and to
vacate is made upon the lessee; or after a written notice of that demand is [However,] subsequent demands that are merely in the nature of reminders
served upon the person found on the premises, and the lessee fails to of the original demand do not operate to renew the one-year period within
comply therewith within 15 days in the case of land or 5 days in the case of which to commence an ejectment suit, considering that the period will still
buildings. be reckoned from the date of the original demand. [Thus,] the one-year
period to commence an ejectment suit would be counted from the first
demand.
70

acquiescence of the lessor. This acquiescence may be inferred from his
failure to serve a notice to quit.
E ect of dispossession lasting for more than
one year (no case or provision cited) As we see it, Article 1670 applies only where, before the expiration of the
lease, no negotiations are held between the lessor and the lessee resulting
Rule on tacita reconduccion - implied new
in its renewal. Where no such talks take place and the lessee is not asked to
vacate before the lapse of fifteen days from the end of the lease, the
lease implication is that the lessor is amenable to its renewal. prcd

Where the lessor is unwilling in any event to renew the lease for whatever
Allegations of tacita reconduccion cannot oust MeTC reason, it will be necessary for him to serve on the lessee a formal notice to
of jurisdiction vacate. As no talks have been held between the lessor and the lessee
concerning the renewal of the lease, there can be no inference that the
Yuki, Jr. v. Wellington Co., GR No. 178527, 27 Nov 2009 former, by his inaction, intends to discontinue it. In such a case, no less
than an express notice to vacate must be made within the statutory 15-day
Tacita reconduccion refers to the right of the lessee to continue enjoying the
period.
material or de facto possession of the thing leased within a period of time
fixed by law. During its existence, the lessee can prevent the lessor from

evicting him from the disputed premises. On the other hand, it is too Samelo v. Manotok Services, Inc. GR No. 170509, 27 June 2012
well-settled to require a citation that the question to be resolved in
unlawful detainer cases is, who is entitled to de facto possession. [When] rent was paid on a monthly basis, the period of lease is considered
Therefore, since tacita reconduccion is determinative of who between the to be from month to month, in accordance with Article 16871 of the Civil Code.
parties is entitled to de facto possession, the MeTC has jurisdiction to "[A] lease from month to month is considered to be one with a definite
resolve and pass upon the issue of implied new lease in unlawful detainer period which expires at the end of each month upon a demand to vacate by
case. the lessor."

The allegation of existence of implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will When the respondent sent a notice to vacate to the petitioner on August 5,
not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment case. It is an 1998, the tacita reconduccion was aborted, and the contract is deemed to
elementary rule that the jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is have expired at the end of that month.
determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint and cannot be
made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed "[A] notice to vacate constitutes an express act on the part of the lessor that
by the defendant. This principle holds even if the facts proved during trial do it no longer consents to the continued occupation by the lessee of its
not support the cause of action alleged in the complaint. In connection with property." After such notice, the lessee's right to continue in possession
this, it is well to note that in unlawful detainer cases the elements to be ceases and her possession becomes one of detainer.
proved and resolved are the facts of lease and expiration or violation of its
terms.
Summary procedure in ejectment
Arevalo Gomez Corp. v. Lao Lian Hiong GR No. 70360, 11 March
1987
actions
The applicable provisions of Civil Code are the following: Section 3, Rule 70. Summary procedure. — Except in cases covered by the
agricultural tenancy laws or when the law otherwise expressly provides,
"Article 1669. If the lease was made for a determinate time, it all actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the
ceases upon the day fixed, without the need of a demand." amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, shall be
"Article 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee should governed by the summary procedure hereunder provided.
continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the
acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary
by either party has previously been given, it is understood that Exceptions/when summary procedure not
there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original
contract, but for the time established in Article 1682 and 1687.
applicable:
The other terms of the original contract shall be revived." 1. when law provides otherwise
2. cases involving agricultural tenancy laws
Under the second article, an implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will
set in if it is shown that: (a) the term of the original contract of lease has
expired; (b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate; and (c)
the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the 1
Article 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to
year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to
week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily.
71

his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack of cause of action or
prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of competent
Nature and purpose of the Rule on Summary jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before
Procedure it, where the defendants, as in this case, failed to object to such exercise of
jurisdiction in their answer and even during the entire proceedings a quo.
Gachon v. De Vera, GR No. 116695, 20 June 1997
The Rule on Summary Procedure, in particular, was promulgated for the
Pleadings
purpose of achieving "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
cases." For this reason, the Rule frowns upon delays and prohibits Allowed pleadings
altogether the filing of motions for extension of time. Consistent with this
reasoning is Section 6 of the Rule which allows the trial court to render Section 4, Rule 70. Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to be
judgment, even motu proprio, upon the failure of a defendant to file an filed are the complaint, compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
answer within the reglementary period. Furthermore, speedy resolution of pleaded in the answer, and the answers thereto. All pleadings shall be
unlawful detainer cases is a matter of public policy, and this rule should verified.
equally apply with full force in forcible entry cases where the possession of
the premises at the start is already illegal. From the foregoing, it is clear
that the use of the word "shall" in the Rule on Summary Procedure Prohibited pleadings
underscores the mandatory character of the challenged provisions. Giving
the provisions a directory application would subvert the nature of the Rule Section 13, Rule 70. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following
on Summary Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be allowed:
adjudication of suits. Indeed, to admit a late answer, as petitioners suggest, 1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack
is to put premium on dilatory maneuvers — the very mischief that the Rule of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply
seeks to redress. with section 12;
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or
Referral for conciliation for reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
Section 12, Rule 70. Referral for conciliation. — Cases requiring referral 5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or
for conciliation, where there is no showing of compliance with such any other paper;
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived 6. Memoranda;
only after that requirement shall have been complied with. 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any
interlocutory order issued by the court;
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
E ect of non-compliance: dismissal without prejudice 9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply;
Non-compliance not jurisdictional 11. Third-party complaints;
12. Interventions.
Aquino v. Aure, GR No. 153567, 18 February 2008
It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the Petition for certiorari
requirement of Section 412 of the Local Government Code on barangay
conciliation (previously contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. Bayog v. Natino, GR No. 118691, 05 July 1996
1508) is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of
A petition for relief from judgment[, as well as a petition for certiorari,] is
administrative remedies — the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of
prohibited under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure[, more
pre-maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial
specifically, under Section 19].
determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.

Nevertheless, the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement,
If Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and Rules 38 and 65
so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the
of the Rules of Court are juxtaposed, the conclusion is inevitable that no
court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of
petition for relief from judgment nor a special civil action of certiorari,
the defendant.
prohibition, or mandamus arising from cases covered by the Revised Rule

on Summary Procedure may be filed with a superior court. This is but
As enunciated in the landmark case of Royales v. Intermediate Appellate
consistent with the mandate of Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 to achieve an
Court:
expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases subject of

summary procedure.
Ordinarily, non-compliance with the condition precedent prescribed by P.D.

1508 could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make
72

Nevertheless, in view of the unusual and peculiar circumstances of this
case, unless some form of relief is made available to MAGDATO, the grave Answer
injustice and irreparable injury that visited him through no fault or
negligence on his part will only be perpetuated. Thus, the petition for relief Section 6, Rule 70. Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the
from judgment which he filed may be allowed or treated, pro hac vice, either defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof
as an exception to the rule, or a regular appeal to the RTC, or even an action on the plaintiff. Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein
to annul the order (decision) of the MCTC of 20 September 1993. shall be deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the
Go v. CA, GR No. 128954, 08 October 1998 answer shall be considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or
It is axiomatic that an interlocutory order [which, in this case, is the MTCC’s cross-claims shall be served and filed within ten (10) days from service
order holding in abeyance the preliminary conference in an ejectment suit,] of the answer in which they are pleaded.
cannot be challenged by an appeal. Thus, it has been held that the proper
remedy in such cases is ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment on the
merits, incorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the
E ect of Failure to File Answer
interlocutory order. Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result
Section 7, Rule 70. Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint
in the 'sorry spectacle' of a case being subject of a counterproductive
within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio or on motion of
ping-pong to and from the appellate court as often as a trial court is
the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts
perceived to have made an error in any of its interlocutory rulings. However,
alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein. The
where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the
court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorney's
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the
fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable, without
Court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress."
prejudice to the applicability of section 3 (c), Rule 9 if there are two or
more defendants.
Action on complaint
Section 5, Rule 70. The court may, from an examination of the allegations Don Tino Realty and Devt Corp. v. Florentino, GR No. 134222, 10
in the complaint and such evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss September 1999
the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action The Rule on Summary Procedure provides that, within ten (10) days from
which are apparent therein. If no ground for dismissal is found, it shall service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint.
forthwith issue summons. The word "shall" underscores their mandatory character. "Giving the
provisions a directory application would subvert the nature of the Rule on
Summary Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the adjudication
Dismissal motu proprio of suits. Indeed, to admit a late answer, . . . , is to put a premium on dilatory
maneuvers — the very mischief that the Rule seeks to redress. Further, as
Service of summons there was no satisfactory explanation offered by respondent why he was
not able to file his answer on time, the Trial Court acted correctly when it
refused to admit his answer.
Preliminary injunction
N.B.: In this case, the Supreme Court reinstated the RTC decision affirming
Section 15, Rule 70. Preliminary injunction. — The court may grant the MTC decision which considered the case submitted for judgment due to
preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 the default. Eventually, a decision was rendered in favor of plaintiff or in
hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of favor of defendant’s ejectment.
dispossession against the plaintiff.
Gachon v. De Vera, supra.
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible from the filing
of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or The Rule on Summary Procedure, in particular, was promulgated for the
unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory purpose of achieving "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
injunction to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the cases." For this reason, the Rule frowns upon delays and prohibits
motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. altogether the filing of motions for extension of time. Consistent with this
reasoning is Section 6 of the Rule which allows the trial court to render
judgment, even motu proprio, upon the failure of a defendant to file an
Section 16, Rule 70. Resolving defense of ownership. — When the answer within the reglementary period. Furthermore, speedy resolution of
defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the unlawful detainer cases is a matter of public policy, and this rule should
question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of equally apply with full force in forcible entry cases where the possession of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the premises at the start is already illegal.
the issue of possession.
73

The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall

Rosales v. CA, GR No. 95697, 05 August 1991 be cause for the dismissal of his complaint. The defendant who appears
Because petitioner did not file the appropriate responsive pleading under in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his
the Rule on Summary Procedure, private respondent moved to declare counterclaim in accordance with the next preceding section. All
defendant in default — itself, like petitioner's motion to dismiss, a cross-claims shall be dismissed. (7, RSP)
prohibited pleading under Section 15 of the Rule on Summary Procedure.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall likewise be
Parenthetically, petitioner argues in the present petition that, entitled to judgment in accordance with the next preceding section. This
notwithstanding it being labeled as a motion to dismiss, said pleading procedure shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued
should have been considered as his answer pursuant to the liberal under a common cause of action defense shall appear at the preliminary
interpretation accorded the rules and inasmuch as the grounds involved conference.
therein also qualify as defenses proper in an answer. No postponement of the preliminary conference shall be granted except
for highly meritorious grounds and without prejudice to such sanctions
In this instance the Court agrees. Indeed, the rule on summary procedure as the court in the exercise of sound discretion may impose on the
was conceptualized to facilitate the immediate resolution of cases such as movant.
the present one. Well-settled is the rule that forcible entry and detainer
cases being summary in nature and involving disturbance of social order,
procedural technicalities should be carefully avoided and should not be Record of preliminary conference
allowed to override substantial justice. With this premise in mind and
having insisted, however erroneously, on its jurisdiction over the case, it Section 9, Rule 70. Record of preliminary conference. — Within five (5)
certainly would have been more prudent for the lower court to have treated days after the termination of the preliminary conference, the court shall
the motion to dismiss as the answer of petitioner and examined the case on issue an order stating the matters taken up therein, including but not
its merits. limited to:
1. Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement,
and if so, the terms thereof;
Co Keng Kian v. IAC, GR No. 75676, 29 August 1990
2. The stipulations or admissions entered into by the parties;
...it matters not how the notice to vacate was conveyed, so long as the
3. Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and the stipulations
lessee or his agent has personally received the written demand, whether
and admission made by the parties, judgment may be
handed to him by the lessor, his attorney, a messenger or even a postman.,,
rendered without the need of further proceedings, in which
And even on the supposition that there was no personal service as claimed
event the judgment shall be rendered within thirty (30) days
by petitioner, this could only be due to petitioner's blatant attempts at
from issuance of the order;
evasion which compelled the new landlord to resort to registered mail. The
4. A clear specification of material facts which remain
Court cannot countenance an unfair situation where the plaintiff in an
converted; and
eviction case suffers further injustice by the unwarranted delay resulting
5. Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of
from the obstinate refusal of the defendant to acknowledge the existence of
the case.
a valid demand.

N.B.: The sole issue here is whether or not there was demand, Submission of a davits and position papers
notwithstanding that it was sent by registered mail instead of through the
three modes under Sec. 2, Rule 70, namely, (1) personally, or (2) by written Section 10, Rule 70. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order
notice of such demand upon a person found on the premises, or (3) by mentioned in the next preceding section, the parties shall submit the
posting such notice on the premises if no person can be found thereon. I affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues
double-checked the citation; it’s correct. But there’s nothing here about defined in the order, together with their position papers setting forth the
effect of failure to file an answer. I suppose if you really want to twist it, law and the facts relied upon by them.
though, it can be interpreted as: since there was failure to heed to the valid
demand, that can be construed as failure to answer, but that’s taking it too
far. Contents of A davits
Section 14, Rule 70. The affidavits required to be submitted under this
Preliminary conference Rule shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants
which are admissible in evidence, and shall show their competence to
Section 8, Rule 70. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. — Not testify to the matters stated therein.
later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary
conference shall be held. The provisions of Rule 18 on pre-trial shall be A violation of this requirement may subject the party or the counsel who
applicable to the preliminary conference unless inconsistent with the submits the same to disciplinary action, and shall be cause to expunge
provisions of this Rule. the inadmissible affidavit or portion thereof from the record. (20, RSP)
74

premised, the inferior court may likewise pass upon these

Period for rendition of judgment issues.

Section 11, Rule 70. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the affidavits The MeTC's ruling on the rights of the parties based on its interpretation of
and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, their contract is, of course, not conclusive, but is merely provisional and is
the court shall render judgment. binding only with respect to the issue of possession.

However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material Guidelines on jurisdiction to resolve
facts, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be
clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence ownership as incident to an ejectment action
on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order.
Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of Sps. Refugia v. CA, GR No. 118284, 05 July 2006
the last affidavit or the expiration of the period for filing the same.
1. The primal rule is that the principal issue must be that of possession, and
The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain time for that ownership is merely ancillary thereto, in which case the issue of
the rendition of the judgment. ownership may be resolved but only for the purpose of determining the
issue of possession. Thus, as earlier stated, the legal provision under
consideration applies only where the inferior court believes and the
Issue of ownership to be resolved to preponderance of evidence shows that a resolution of the issue of
determine issue of possession possession is dependent upon the resolution of the question of ownership.

2. It must sufficiently appear from the allegations in the complaint that what
Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, supra. the plaintiff really and primarily seeks is the restoration of possession.
...the issue of ownership can be material and relevant in resolving the issue Consequently, where the allegations of the complaint as well as the reliefs
of possession. The Rules in fact expressly allow this: Section 16, Rule 70 of prayed for clearly establish a case for the recovery of ownership, and not
the Rules of Court provides that the issue of ownership shall be resolved in merely one for the recovery of possession de facto, or where the averments
deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is plead the claim of material possession as a mere elemental attribute of
intertwined with the issue of ownership. But this provision is only an such claim for ownership, or where the issue of ownership is the principal
exception and is allowed only in this limited instance — to determine the question to be resolved, the action is not one for forcible entry but one for
issue of possession and only if the question of possession cannot be title to real property.
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership.
3. The inferior court cannot adjudicate on the nature of ownership where the
relationship of lessor and lessee has been sufficiently established in the
Authority of the trial court to interpret ejectment case, unless it is sufficiently established that there has been a
contracts in an unlawful detainer action subsequent change in or termination of that relationship between the
parties. This is because under Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the
tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
Union Bank of the Phils. v.Maunlad Homes, Inc., supra. commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
The authority granted to the MeTC to preliminarily resolve the issue of
ownership to determine the issue of possession ultimately allows it to 4. The rule in forcible entry cases, but not in those for unlawful detainer, is
interpret and enforce the contract or agreement between the plaintiff and that a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession
the defendant. To deny the MeTC jurisdiction over a complaint merely even against the owner himself. Regardless of the actual condition of the
because the issue of possession requires the interpretation of a contract title to the property and whatever may be the character of his prior
will effectively rule out unlawful detainer as a remedy. As stated, in an possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that
action for unlawful detainer, the defendant's right to possess the property entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a
may be by virtue of a contract, express or implied; corollarily, the person having a better right through an accion publiciana or accion
termination of the defendant's right to possess would be governed by the reivindicatoria. Corollarily, if prior possession may be ascertained in some
terms of the same contract. Interpretation of the contract between the other way, then the inferior court cannot dwell upon or intrude into the
plaintiff and the defendant is inevitable because it is the contract that issue of ownership.
initially granted the defendant the right to possess the property; it is this
same contract that the plaintiff subsequently claims was violated or 5. Where the question of who has prior possession hinges on the question
extinguished, terminating the defendant's right to possess. We ruled in Sps. of who the real owner of the disputed portion is, the inferior court may
Refugia v. CA that — resolve the issue of ownership and make a declaration as to who among the
contending parties is the real owner. In the same vein, where the resolution
...where the resolution of the issue of possession hinges on a of the issue of possession hinges on a determination of the validity and
determination of the validity and interpretation of the document interpretation of the document of title or any other contract on which the
of title or any other contract on which the claim of possession is claim of possession is premised, the inferior court may likewise pass upon
75

these issues. This is because, and it must be so understood, that any such nobody can affirm that the liquidated amount of damages
pronouncement made affecting ownership of the disputed portion is to be stipulated in the lease contract was not due to occupation or
regarded merely as provisional, hence, does not bar nor prejudice an action loss of possession of the premises and non-compliance with
between the same parties involving title to the land. Moreover, Section 7, the contract."
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the judgment rendered
in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be effective with
respect to the possession only and in no wise bind the title or affect the
Judgment on counterclaim
ownership of the land or building.
Rodriguez v. Salvador, GR No. 171972, 08 June 2011

Judgment *this is a case of agricultural tenancy; there is absolutely no discussion on
counterclaims
Section 17, Rule 70. If after trial court finds that the allegations of the
complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for
the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or Conclusive only as to possession; not conclusive in
as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, actions involving title or ownership
attorney's fees and costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court
shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and Section 18, Rule 70. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not
award costs as justice requires. conclusive in actions involving title or ownership. — The judgment
rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive
with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or
Relief a orded plainti affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar
1. Restitution of premises an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or
2. Arrears of rent and legal costs building.

The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate
Other damages must be claimed in an ordinary action Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such
Hualam Construction and Devt Corp. v, CA, GR No. 85466, 16 memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
October 1992 required by the Regional Trial Court.
As to damages, We have on several occasions ruled that since the only issue
raised in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases is that of rightful physical
possession, the "damages" recoverable in these cases are those which the Heirs of Basilia Hernandez v. Vergara, Jr., GR No. 166975, 15
plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, i.e., those caused by the September 2006
loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which While we are in accord with the CA in ruling that the only issue for
he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession
material possession. Municipal and city courts, therefore, have no of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of
jurisdiction to award damages based on any other ground. Simply put, the party litigants, we disagree, however, with its conclusion that the MeTC
"damages" in the context of Section 8 of Rule 70 is limited to "rent" or "fair is divested of jurisdiction in this case because the issue of ownership
rental value" for the use and occupation of the property. which is so intertwined with the issue of possession, was raised by the
respondent in his Answer.

Azcuna, Jr. v. CA, GR No. 116665, 20 March 1996
In Garcia v. Zosa, Jr.: The judgment of the inferior court, however, on the
The controlling case here is, as correctly invoked by private respondent,
question of ownership is of a provisional nature and shall be for the sole
"Gozon v. Vda. de Barrameda" which involved similar facts and the same
purpose of determining the issue of possession. It shall not bind the title of
issue raised by herein petitioner. [There, the Court held:]
the realty or affect the ownership thereof nor shall it bar an action between

the same parties respecting title to the real property. Verily, we hold that
"This Court has often stated that inferior courts have exclusive
the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the MTC has jurisdiction to
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and detainer regardless
hear and decide Civil Case No. 2728 for forcible entry, notwithstanding the
of the value of damages demanded. It has also ruled that the
issue of ownership raised by petitioner in her answer.
damages that may be recovered in actions for ejectment are
those equivalent to a reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the premises by defendant. Nonetheless, this Immediate execution; how to stay execution
latter legal proposition is not pertinent to the issue raised in the
instant case because here, the damage sought to be recovered Section 19, Rule 70. Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment;
had previously been agreed to by lessee (in the contract of how to stay same. — If judgment is rendered against the defendant,
lease) and imposed by lessor by way of damages. Besides, execution shall issue immediately upon motion unless an appeal has
76

As a rule, the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory and if not filed, the

been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient
plaintiff is entitled as a matter of right to the immediate execution of the
supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed
judgment.
in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing

down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the
An exception is where the trial court did not make any findings with respect
pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount
to any amount in arrears, damages or costs against the defendant, in which
of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by
case no bond is necessary to stay the execution of the judgment.
the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he

shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the
Thus, in Once v. Gonzales, this Court ruled that the order of execution
use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at
premised on the failure to file a supersedeas bond was groundless and void
the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the
because no such bond was necessary there being no back rentals adjudged
tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond
in the appealed judgment. Similarly, in the instant case, there was no need
shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the papers, to the
for the private respondents to file a supersedeas bond because the
clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed.
judgment of the MTCC did not award rentals in arrears or damages. The

attorney's fees of P8,000 and the litigation expenses of P2,000 awarded in
All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be deposited with said
favor of the petitioner need not be covered by a bond, as these are not the
court or authorized government depositary bank, and shall be held there
damages contemplated in Section 8 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The
until the final disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by agreement
damages referred to therein are the reasonable compensation for the use
of the interested parties, or in the absence of reasonable grounds of
and occupation of the property which are generally measured by its fair
opposition to a motion to withdraw, or for justifiable reasons, shall
rental value and cannot refer to other damages which are foreign to the
decree otherwise. Should the defendant fail to make the payments
enjoyment or material possession of the property.
above prescribed from time to time during the pendency of the appeal,
the appellate court, upon motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof of such
failure, shall order the execution of the judgment appealed from with Motion for reconsideration of judgment on the merits
respect to the restoration of possession, but such execution shall not be prohibited
a bar to the appeal taking its course until the final disposition thereof on
the merits.
Lucas v. Fabros, AM No MTJ-99-1226, 31 January 2000
After the case is decided by the Regional Trial Court, any money paid to As a rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under
the court by the defendant for purposes of the stay of execution shall be Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Thus, "SEC. 19.
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the judgment of the Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following pleadings, motions, or
Regional Trial Court. In any case wherein it appears that the defendant petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule. . . . (c)
has been deprived of the lawful possession of land or building pending Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of
the appeal by virtue of the execution of the judgment of the Municipal trial; . . ." This rule, however, applies only where the judgment sought to be
Trial Court, damages for such deprivation of possession and restoration reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. As held by the Court in an
of possession and restoration of possession may be allowed the earlier case involving Sec. 15 (c) of the Rules on Summary Procedure, later
defendant in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court disposing of the Sec. 19 (c) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure effective November
appeal. 15, 1991: "The motion prohibited by this Section is that which seeks
reconsideration of the judgment rendered by the court after trial on the
merits of the case."
Acbang v. Luczon, Jr., GR No. 164246, 15 Jan 2014
...a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately
executory, but the defendant, to stay its immediate execution, must: (1)
Appeal
perfect an appeal; (2) file a supersedeas bond; and (3) periodically deposit
Section 18 (2), Rule 70. The judgment or final order shall be appealable to
the rentals becoming due during the pendency of the appeal.
the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the
Exception basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin
and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties
or required by the Regional Trial Court.
Aznar Bros. Realty Inc. v. CA, GR No. 128102, 07 Mar 2000
To stay the immediate execution of the judgment, the defendant must (1)
perfect his appeal; (2) file a supersedeas bond to answer for the rents, Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of
damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed appeal
from; and (3) periodically deposit the rentals falling due during the
pendency of the appeal. Section 20, Rule 70. Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of appeal.
— Upon motion of the plaintiff, within ten (10) days from the perfection of
the appeal to the Regional Trial Court, the latter may issue a writ of
77

plaintiffs was declared null and void, making the plaintiffs' right to possess

preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the plaintiff in possession if
the disputed property inconclusive. The Court ruled in said case that:
the court is satisfied that the defendant's appeal is frivolous or dilatory

or that the appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious.
Where supervening events (occurring subsequent to the
judgment) bring about a material change in the situation of the
Immediate execution of RTC judgment on parties which makes the execution inequitable, or where there
is no compelling urgency for the execution because it is not
appeal to the CA or the SC justified by the prevailing circumstances, the court may stay
immediate execution of the judgment.
Section 21, Rule 70. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals
or Supreme Court. — The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the In the present case, there also exists a material change in the situation of
defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further the parties. The CA properly took into serious consideration the fact that in
appeal that may be taken therefrom. [another] Decision, which has become final and executory, it ordered herein
petitioner, formerly known as La Campana Food Products, Inc., to surrender
ALPA-PCM, Inc. v. Bulasao, GR No. 197124, 19 March 2012 possession of subject properties to the Development Bank of the
Philippines. Evidently, a serious cloud of doubt has been cast on petitioner's
Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure states that: right of possession, making it questionable whether the RTC Decision,
ordering private respondent to surrender possession of subject premises to
Sec. 21.Appeal. — The judgment or final order shall be appealable petitioner, should be immediately implemented.
to the appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the
same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
The decision of the regional trial court in civil cases governed by Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR No. 167471, 05 February 2007
this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall To stay the immediate execution of judgment in ejectment proceedings,
be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal Section 19 requires that the defendant-appellant must (a) perfect his
that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be appeal, (b) file a supersedeas bond, and (c) periodically deposit the rentals
deemed repealed. [emphasis and underscoring ours] falling due during the pendency of the appeal.

The above rule, without any qualification whatsoever, has decreed the The invocation of petitioner of the provisions of Section 21, Rule 70 of the
immediately executory nature of decisions of the RTC rendered in the Rules of Court, which runs:
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, involving cases falling under the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. It requires no further justification or Sec. 21. Immediate Execution on Appeal to Court of Appeals or
even "good reasons" for the RTC to authorize execution, even if an appeal Supreme Court. — The judgment of the Regional Trial Court
has already been filed before the CA. Indeed, the provision does not even against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without
require a bond to be filed by the prevailing party to allow execution to prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.
proceed.
to justify the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal in this case is
La Campana Devt Corp. v. Ledesma, GR No. 154152, 25 August misplaced.

2010 A closer examination of the above-quoted provision reveals that said
It is true that Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that "[t]he provision applies to decision of the RTC rendered in its appellate
judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be jurisdiction, affirming the decision of the MeTC. In the case at bar, the RTC
immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be order was an order dismissing respondent's appeal based on technicality. It
taken therefrom." However, the Court ruled in Benedicto v. Court of Appeals did not resolve substantive matters delving on the merits of the parties'
that "on appeal the appellate court may stay the said writ should claim in the ejectment case. Thus, the case brought to the Court of Appeals
circumstances so require. . . . even if RTC judgments in unlawful detainer was the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the required memorandum
cases are immediately executory, preliminary injunction may still be within the period provided by law, and not on the merits of the ejectment
granted." case.

...when exigencies in the case warrant it, the appellate court may stay the
writ of execution issued by the RTC in an action for ejectment if there are
circumstances necessitating such action.

An example of such exceptional circumstance can be seen in Laurel v.
Abalos. Therein, a defendant was ordered by the trial court to vacate the
premises of the disputed property and return possession thereof to the
plaintiffs, but while the ejectment case was on appeal, a judgment was
promulgated in a separate case where the sale of the property to said
78

Salient provisions of RA 9653 (Rent Control Prohibition against Ejectment by reason of sale or
mortgage
Law)
Section 10, RA 9653. Prohibition Against Ejectment by Reason of Sale or
Grounds for judicial ejectment Mortgage. - No lessor or his successor-in-interest shall be entitled to
eject the lessee upon the ground that the leased premises have been
sold or mortgaged to a third person regardless of whether the lease or
Section 9, RA 9653. Assignment of lease or subleasing of residential
mortgage is registered or not.
units in whole or in part, including the acceptance of boarders or
bedspaces, without the written consent of the owner/lessor;

Arrears in payment of rent for a total of three (3) months: Provided, That X. Contempt [R71]
in the case of refusal by the lessor to accept payment of the rent agreed
upon, the lessee may either deposit, by way of consignation, the amount
in court, or with the city or municipal treasurer, as the case may be, or Direct contempt
barangay chairman, or in a bank in the name of and with notice to the
lessor, within one (1) month after the refusal of the lessor to accept
Section 1, Rule 71. Direct contempt punished summarily. — A person
payment.
guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct

or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect
The lessee shall thereafter deposit the rent within ten (10) days of every
toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be
current month. Failure to deposit the rent for three (3) months shall
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or
constitute a ground for ejectment.
deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged

in contempt by such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two
The lessor, upon authority of the court in case of consignation or upon
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if
joint affidavit by him and the lessee to be submitted to the city or
it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or by a
municipal treasurer or barangay chairman and to the bank where
fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding
deposit was made, shall be allowed to withdraw the deposits;
one (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court.

Legitimate need of the owner/lessor to repossess his or her property for
his or her own use of for the use of an immediate member of his or her Definition, nature and purpose of contempt of
family as a residential unit: Provided, however, That the lease for a
definite period has expired: Provided, further, That the lessor has given court
the lessee the formal notice three (3) months in advance of the lessor's
intention to repossess the property and: Provided, finally, That the
owner/lessor is prohibited from leasing the residential unit or allowing
Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management Association
its use by a third party for a period of at least one (1) year from the time of the Phils., GR No. 155849, 31 August 2011
of repossession; Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of
a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or
Need of the lessor to make necessary repairs of the leased premises disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an
which is the subject of an existing order of condemnation by appropriate interruption of, its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language
authorities concerned in order to make the said premises safe and in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair
habitable: Provided, That after said repair, the lessee ejected shall have the respect due to such a body. In its restricted and more usual sense,
the first preference to lease the same premises: Provided, further, That contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a
the new rent shall be reasonably commensurate with the expenses court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal
incurred for the repair of the said residential unit and: Provided, finally, signification a variety of different acts.
That if the residential unit is condemned or completely demolished, the The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all Courts, and need not be
lease of the new building will no longer be subject to the specifically granted by statute. It lies at the core of the administration of a
aforementioned first preference rule in this subsection; and judicial system. Indeed, there ought to be no question that courts have the
power by virtue of their very creation to impose silence, respect, and
Expiration of the period of the lease contract. decorum in their presence, submission to their lawful mandates, and to
preserve themselves and their officers from the approach and insults of
pollution.

The power to punish for contempt essentially exists for the preservation of
order in judicial proceedings and for the enforcement of judgments, orders,
and mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for the due administration
79

of justice. The reason behind the power to punish for contempt is that himself at any moment by doing what he had previously refused to do. In
respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution; without fine, the defendant carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket.
such guarantee, the institution of the courts would be resting on a very
shaky foundation. It may happen that, in proceedings for criminal contempt, where the
imprisonment is solely punitive to vindicate the authority of the courts, the
complainant may also derive some incidental benefits from the fact that
Distinctions between civil and criminal such punishment tends to prevent a repetition of the disobedience.
contempt However, such indirect consequences will not change imprisonment which
is merely coercive and remedial into that which is solely punitive in
character or vice-versa.
Rosario Textile Mills, Inc. v. CA, GR No. 137326, 25 Aug 2003
The Court held in Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals that: "In Contemptuous statements in pleadings
general, criminal contempt proceedings should be conducted in accordance
with the principles and rules applicable to criminal cases, in so far as such constitute direct contempt
procedure is consistent with the summary nature of contempt proceedings.
So it has been held that the strict rules that govern criminal prosecutions
apply to a prosecution for criminal contempt, that the accused is to be Cruz v. Gingoyon, GR No. 170404, 28 Sept 2011
afforded many of the protections provided in regular criminal cases, and "[C]ontemptuous statements made in pleadings filed with the court
that proceedings under statutes governing them are to be strictly constitute direct contempt." (Atty. Ante v. Judge Pascua) "[A] pleading . . .
construed. However, criminal proceedings are not required to take any containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements submitted to the
particular form so long as the substantial rights of the accused are court or judge in which the proceedings are pending . . . has been held to be
preserved. Civil contempt proceedings, on the other hand, are generally equivalent to 'misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court
held to be remedial and civil in nature; that is, for the enforcement of some or judge as to interrupt the proceedings before the same' within the
duty, and essentially a remedy resorted to, to preserve and enforce the meaning of Rule 71, § 1 of the Rules of Court and, therefore, constitutes direct
rights of a private party to an action and to compel obedience to a judgment contempt."
or decree intended to benefit such a party litigant. The rules of procedure
governing criminal contempt proceedings, or criminal prosecutions,
ordinarily are inapplicable to civil contempt proceedings. " In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen
of the o ense
Ceniza v. Wishtehuff, Sr., GR No. 165734, 16 June 2006
The Rules of Court provides for the following punishment for the contemnor: St. Louis University, Inc. v. Olairez, GR No. 162299, 26 March
fine or imprisonment, or both.
2014
It is not the fact of punishment, but rather its character and purpose, that In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good
often serve to distinguish between the two classes of contempt. If it is for faith or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor is considered. Where the act
civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the complained of is ambiguous or does not clearly show on its face that it is
complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to contempt, and is one which, if the party is acting in good faith, is within his
vindicate the authority of the court. But if the contempt consists in the rights, the presence or absence of a contumacious intent is, in some
refusal of a party or a person to do an act which the court has ordered him to instances, held to be determinative of its character. A person should not be
do for the benefit or the advantage of a party to a suit or action pending condemned for contempt where he contends for what he believes to be
before it, and he is committed until he complies with the order, the right and in good faith institutes proceedings for the purpose, however
commitment is in the nature of an execution to enforce the judgment of the erroneous may be his conclusion as to his rights. To constitute contempt,
court, and the party in whose favor that judgment was rendered is the real the act must be done wilfully and for an illegitimate or improper purpose.
party-in-interest in the proceedings.

It is true that punishment by imprisonment may be remedial as well as Failure to attend hearing not direct contempt
punitive, and many civil contempt proceedings have resulted not only in the
imposition of a fine, payable to the complainant, but also in committing the
but indirect contempt
defendant to prison. But imprisonment for civil contempt is ordered where
the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by the Silva v. Lee, Jr., AM No. R-225-RTJ, 26 Jan 1989
provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, is mandatory in
its character. Imprisonment in such cases is not inflicted as a punishment, Direct contempt is conduct directed against or assailing the authority and
but is intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had dignity of the court or a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act, while
refused to do. The order in such cases is that the defendant stand indirect contempt is the failure to do something ordered done by the court
committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the or judge, such as failure to appear at a hearing or in the use of disrespectful
court's order. The defendant can end his imprisonment and discharge language in a pleading.
80

Other provisions on contempt Indirect contempt to be punished

after charge and hearing
Section 5, Rule 71. Where charge to be filed. — Where the charge for
indirect contempt has been committed against a Regional Trial Court or a
Section 3, Rule 71. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and
court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it,
hearing. — After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity
the charge may be filed with such court. Where such contempt has been
given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may
committed against a lower court, the charge may be filed with the
be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person
Regional Trial Court of the place in which the lower court is sitting; but
guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
the proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court subject to
contempt;
appeal to the Regional Trial Court of such place in the same manner as

provided in section 11 of this Rule.
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his
official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
Section 9, Rule 21. Contempt. — Failure by any person without adequate
order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person
cause to obey a subpoena served upon him shall be deemed a contempt
who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
of the court from which the subpoena is issued. If the subpoena was not
property by the judgment or process of any court of
issued by a court, the disobedience thereto shall be punished in
competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces
accordance with the applicable law or Rule.
another to enter into or upon such real property, for the
purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in
any manner disturbs the possession given to the person
Section 2, Rule 29. Contempt of court. — If a party or other witness
adjudged to be entitled thereto;
refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer any question after being
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
directed to do so by the court of the place in which the deposition is
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct
being taken, the refusal may be considered a contempt of that court.
contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
Section 43, rule 39. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting
person claims the property. — If it appears that a person or corporation,
as such without authority;
alleged to have property of the judgment obligor or to be indebted to
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
him, claims an interest in the property adverse to him or denied the
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in
debt, the court may authorize, by an order made to that effect, the
the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a
judgment obligee to institute an action against such person or
court held by him.
corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt, forbid a transfer or

other disposition of such interest or debt within one hundred twenty
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court
(120) days from notice of the order, and may punish disobedience of
from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding
such order as for contempt. Such order may be modified or vacated at
him in custody pending such proceedings.
any time by the court which issued it, or by the court in which the action
is brought, upon such terms as may be just.
Acts constituting indirect contempt
Remedy from direct contempt Roxas v. Tipon, GR Nos. 160641-42, 20 June 2012
Section 2, Rule 71. Remedy therefrom. — The person adjudged in direct In the Order dated 9 January 2002, petitioners were directed to appear in
contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself court and to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court
of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the for their refusal to allow Financial Catalyst, Inc. to audit the books of HEVRI.
judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition, Petitioners filed an urgent motion for reconsideration claiming that said
provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the order was the subject of a pending petition before the Court of Appeals and
judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the that they can only be cited for contempt by the filing of a verified petition.
judgment should the petition be decided against him. The RTC denied the motion and reiterated in its Order on 26 April 2002
explaining that it chose to initiate the contempt charge.

The RTC acted on the basis of the unjustified refusal of petitioners to abide
by its lawful order. It is of no moment that private respondents may have
filed several pleadings to urge the RTC to cite petitioners in contempt.
81

Petitioners utterly violated an order issued by the trial court which act is inhibition. A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for his
considered contemptuous. Thus, in Leonidas v. Judge Supnet, the MTC's inhibition that questions or puts to doubt, however insignificant, his
order to the bank to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, was supposed predilection to a case pending before him. The alleged offensive
adjudged as a legitimate exercise of the MTC's judicial discretion to and contemptuous language contained in the letter-complaint was not
determine whether the bank should be sanctioned for disregarding its directed to the respondent court. As observed by the Court Administrator,
previous orders. Independently of the motions filed by the opposing party, it "what respondent should have done in this particular case is that he should
was the MTC which commenced the contempt proceedings motu proprio. No have given the Court (Supreme Court) the opportunity to rule on the
verified petition is required if proceedings for indirect contempt are complaint and not simply acted precipitately in citing complainant in
initiated in this manner, and the absence of a verified petition does not contempt of court in a manner which obviously smacks of retaliation rather
affect the procedure adopted. than the upholding of a court's honor." A judge may not hold a party in
contempt of court for expressing concern on his impartiality even if the
Patagan v. Panis, GR No. L-55730, 08 April 1988, GR No. 117266, 13 judge may have been insulted therein.
March 1997
In the case at bar, it appears that petitioners had been effectively ejected Definition and procedure for indirect
from the land in question pursuant to the writ of demolition issued by the contempt
court. Their re-entry is clearly a defiance of the authority of the court. As it
is, the decision sought to be enforced had long become final and executory.
And unless and until the said decision is annulled or set aside in a proper Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management Association
proceeding, the same must be given effect. of the Phils., supra.
A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court
Reer v. Lubao, AM OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ, 20 July 2012 or commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
Under Section 3 (e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a person obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for
"[a]ssuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such indirect contempt. In particular, Section 4, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules states
without authority," is liable for indirect contempt of court.||| (Ciocon-Reer v. that, in addition to a possible treatment of a party as non-suited or as in
Lubao, A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ (Resolution), [June 20, 2012], 688 PHIL default, the sanctions prescribed in the Rules for failure to avail of, or
339-347) refusal to comply with, the modes of discovery shall apply.

Tinagan v. Perlas, Jr., GR No. L-23965, 30 January 1968 As far as the proceedings for indirect contempt is concerned, the case of
Respondent contends that the act of petitioner in answering the judge that Baculi v. Judge Belen is instructive:
"she did not want and she does not want to obey the order and would refuse
to obey the order of the court" constituted misbehavior in the presence of . . . Under the Rules of Court, there are two ways of initiating indirect
the court and/or disrespect toward the court or judge. contempt proceedings: (1) motu proprio by the court; or (2) by a verified
While petitioner's answer might be construed as a challenge to the court's petition.
authority to enforce its lawful orders, We are of the opinion, however, that
under the circumstances, petitioner's conduct does not amount to a direct In the Matter of the Contempt Orders against Lt. Gen. Jose M. Calimlim and
contempt, considering that petitioner would not have had the occasion to Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr. (Calimlim) clarified the procedure prescribed for
give such an answer "in the presence of or so near a court or judge" were indirect contempt proceedings. We held in that case:
she not arrested and brought to court. In the predicament the petitioner was
placed — arrested and brought before the Judge, and then was asked "if she In contempt proceedings, the prescribed procedure must be followed.
was willing to comply with the order of the court to deliver the house", Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provide the procedure to be
having in mind an earlier petition 1 filed by her for "Certiorari, Mandamus followed in case of indirect contempt. First, there must be an order
and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction," praying to annul, for being requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for
premature, the court's order issued on July 27, 1964, directing the public contempt. Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity to
auction of the building occupied by her — petitioner merely manifested to comment on the charge against him. Third, there must be a hearing and the
the court what she believed to be the correct answer to the question of the court must investigate the charge and consider respondent's answer.
court. She had her own valid reasons for resisting obedience to the court's Finally, only if found guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.
order because her petition for certiorari and prohibition before this Court (Citations omitted.)
had not yet been resolved.
As to the second mode of initiating indirect contempt proceedings, that is,
through a verified petition, the rule is already settled in Regalado v. Go:
But see: Cortes v. Bangalan, AM No. MTJ-97-1129, 19 January
2000 In cases where the court did not initiate the contempt charge, the Rules
While it is true that the complainant attached the administrative prescribe that a verified petition which has complied with the requirements
letter-complaint in his letter for respondent judge to inhibit in the criminal of initiatory pleadings as outlined in the heretofore quoted provision of
case, it was used merely to support his contention in his motion for second paragraph, Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, must be filed.
82

The Rules itself is explicit on this point:

court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a

principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a
allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided
verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of
separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of
documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the
the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and
requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court
decision.
concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal
action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact
but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless Procedure for indirect contempt
the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge
and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Sanchez, GR No. 182738,
Thus, where there is a verified petition to cite someone in contempt of court, 24 February 2014
courts have the duty to ensure that all the requirements for filing initiatory
pleadings have been complied with. It behooves them too to docket the ...attached to [the motion for indirect contempt] were mere photocopies of
petition, and to hear and decide it separately from the main case, unless the the supporting documents and not "certified true copies of documents or
presiding judge orders the consolidation of the contempt proceedings and papers involved therein" as required by the Rules of Court. However, given
the main action. that the motion was verified and petitioners, who were given a chance to
oppose or comment on it, made no objection thereto, we brush aside the
But in indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu proprio by the court, defect in form and proceed to discuss the merits of the motion.
the above rules, as clarified in Regalado, do not necessarily apply. First,
since the court itself motu proprio initiates the proceedings, there can be no Furthermore, as held in Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, Section 3, Rule 71 of
verified petition to speak of. Instead, the court has the duty to inform the the Rules of Court outlines the procedural requisites before the accused
respondent in writing, in accordance with his or her right to due process. may be punished for indirect contempt: (1) the filing of a written charge and
This formal charge is done by the court in the form of an Order requiring the (2) an opportunity to be heard by himself or counsel. All that the law
respondent to explain why he or she should not be cited in contempt of requires is that there is a charge in writing duly filed in court and an
court. opportunity given to the person charged to be heard by himself or counsel.
What is important is that the alleged contemner be granted an opportunity
...when the court issues motu proprio a show-cause order, the duty of the to meet the charges against him and to be heard in his defense. Petitioners
court (1) to docket and (2) to hear and decide the case separately from the were given this opportunity; they in fact filed their Opposition.
main case does not arise, much less to exercise the discretion to order the
Where charge to be filed

consolidation of the cases. There is no petition from any party to be
docketed, heard and decided separately from the main case precisely
because it is the show-cause order that initiated the proceedings.
Section 5, Rule 71. Where charge to be filed. — Where the charge for
What remains in any case, whether the proceedings are initiated by a indirect contempt has been committed against a Regional Trial Court or a
verified petition or by the court motu proprio, is the duty of the court to court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it,
ensure that the proceedings are conducted respecting the right to due the charge may be filed with such court. Where such contempt has been
process of the party being cited in contempt. In both modes of initiating committed against a lower court, the charge may be filed with the
indirect contempt proceedings, if the court deems that the answer to the Regional Trial Court of the place in which the lower court is sitting; but
contempt charge is satisfactory, the proceedings end. The court must the proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court subject to
conduct a hearing, and the court must consider the respondent's answer. appeal to the Regional Trial Court of such place in the same manner as
Only if found guilty will the respondent be punished accordingly. provided in section 11 of this Rule.
How proceedings commenced Indirect contempt must be filed before the
Section 4, Rule 71. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated
court against which the indirect contempt
motu propio by the court against which the contempt was committed by was committed
an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
Lee v. RTC-Quezon City, GR No. 146006, 22 April 2005
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by The charge for indirect contempt must be filed before the court against
a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies which the indirect contempt was committed... Hence, the charge for indirect
of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with contempt for disobedience to our February 23, 2004 decision was correctly
the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the brought to us. (Note that there was no discussion in this case about this
83

topic; the above quote is from the immediately preceding case, Capitol Hills the court. This may be resorted to where the attendant circumstances are
Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Sanchez) such that the non-compliance with the court order is an utter disregard of
the authority of the court which has then no other recourse but to use its
coercive power. It has been held that "when a person or party is legally and
Hearing; release on bail validly required by a court to appear before it for a certain purpose, when
that requirement is disobeyed, the only remedy left for the court is to use
force to bring such person or party before it."
Section 6, Rule 71. Hearing; release on bail. — If the hearing is not ordered

to be had forthwith, the respondent may be released from custody upon
The reason for indefinite incarceration in civil contempt proceedings, in
filing a bond, in an amount fixed by the court, for his appearance at the
proper cases, is that it is remedial, preservative, or coercive in nature. The
hearing of the charge. On the day set therefor, the court shall proceed to
punishment is imposed for the benefit of a complainant or a party to a suit
investigate the charge and consider such comment, testimony or
who has been injured. Its object is to compel performance of the orders or
defense as the respondent may make or offer.
decrees of the court, which the contemnor refuses to obey although able to
do so. In effect, it is within the power of the person adjudged guilty of
Punishment for indirect contempt contempt to set himself free.
Section 7, Rule 71. Punishment for indirect contempt. — If the respondent

is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional
Proceeding when party released on
Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by
a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not
bail falls to answer
exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt
committed against a lower court, he may be punished by a fine not Section 9, Rule 71. Proceeding when party released on bail fails to
exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) answer. — When a respondent released on bail fails to appear on the day
month, or both. If the contempt consists in the violation of a writ of fixed for the hearing, the court may issue another order of arrest or may
injunction, temporary restraining order or status quo order, he may also order the bond for his appearance to be forfeited and confiscated, or
be ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by such both; and, if the bond be proceeded against, the measure of damages
violation of the property involved or such amount as may be alleged and shall be the extent of the loss or injury sustained by the aggrieved party
proved. by reason of the misconduct for which the contempt charge was
prosecuted, with the costs of the proceedings, and such recovery shall
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall issue for the be for the benefit of the party injured. If there is no aggrieved party, the
enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine unless the court otherwise bond shall be liable and disposed of as in criminal cases.
provides.
Lee v. RTC-Quezon City, supra.

Court may release respondent
Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court penalizes indirect contempt as
Section 10, Rule 71. Court may release respondent. — The court which
follows:
issued the order imprisoning a person for contempt may discharge him

from imprisonment when it appears that public interest will not be
Sec. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt. — If the respondent is
prejudiced by his release.
adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a
Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he
may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos
or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. . . .
Review of judgment or final order;
bond for stay
Imprisonment until order obeyed Section 11, Rule 71. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay. — The
judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt may be
Section 8, Rule 71. Imprisonment until order obeyed. — When the
appealed to the proper court as in criminal cases. But execution of the
contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet in
judgment or final order shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by
the power of the respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order
the person adjudged in contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from
of the court concerned until he performs it.
which the appeal is taken, conditioned that if the appeal be decided
against him he will abide by and perform the judgment or final order.
Montenegro v. Montenegro, GR No. 156829, 08 June 2004
Section 7 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides for indefinite incarceration
in civil contempt proceedings to compel a party to comply with the order of
84

contempt is clearly considered and expressly defined as

Yasay, Jr. v. Recto, GR No. 129521, 07 September 1999 contempt of court,as is done in the second paragraph of Sec.
While the SEC is vested with the power to punish for contempt, the salutary 580, Revised Administrative Code. The provision referred to
rule is that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised on the contemplates the situation where a person, without lawful
preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not excuse, fails to appear, make oath, give testimony or produce
retaliatory idea of punishment. The courts and other tribunals vested with documents when required to do so by the official or body
the power of contempt must exercise the power to punish for contempt for exercising such powers. For such violation, said person shall be
purposes that are impersonal, because that power is intended as a subject to discipline, as in the case of contempt of court, upon
safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they application of the official or body with the Regional Trial Court
exercise... The disobedience which the law punishes as constructive for the corresponding sanctions.
contempt implies willfulness. For, at bottom, contempt is a willful disregard Evidently, quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for
or disobedience. indirect contempt pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can only do so by
initiating them in the proper Regional Trial Court. It is not within their
Finally, the penalty imposed exceeded those authorized in the powers of jurisdiction and competence to decide the indirect contempt cases. These
the SEC in relation to the 1964 Revised Rules of Court as amended. If the matters are still within the province of the Regional Trial Courts.
contempt was committed against a superior court or judge, the accused
may be fined not exceeding thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) or
imprisoned not more than six (6) months, or both. The SEC suspended
respondent Manalaysay from the practice of law in the SEC, a power vested
exclusively in the Supreme Court.

Digital Telecommunications, Inc. v. Cantos, GR No. 180200, 25
Nov 2013
Indeed, contempt is not a criminal offense. However, a charge for contempt
of court partakes of the nature of a criminal action. Rules that govern
criminal prosecutions strictly apply to a prosecution for contempt. In fact,
Section 11 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal in indirect
contempt proceedings may be taken as in criminal cases. This Court has
held that an alleged contemner should be accorded the same rights as that
of an accused. 41 Thus, the dismissal of the indirect contempt charge
against respondent amounts to an acquittal, which effectively bars a
second prosecution.
Contempt against quasi-judicial

entitles
Section 12, Rule 71. Contempt against quasi-judicial entities. — Unless
otherwise provided by law, this Rule shall apply to contempt committed
against persons, entities, bodies or agencies exercising quasi-judicial
functions, or shall have suppletory effect to such rules as they may have
adopted pursuant to authority granted to them by law to punish for
contempt. The Regional Trial Court of the place wherein the contempt has
been committed shall have jurisdiction over such charges as may be
filed therefor.
LBP v. Listana Jr., GR No. 152611, 05 August 2003

[Section 12, Rule 71] puts to rest once and for all the questions regarding the
applicability of these rules to quasi-judicial bodies, to wit:
1. This new section was necessitated by the holdings that the
former Rule 71 applied only to superior and inferior courts and
did not comprehend contempt committed against
administrative or quasi judicial officials or bodies, unless said
85

SCA Reviewer 1718

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

SCA Reviewer 1718

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCA Reviewer 1718

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL CIVIL Initiated by Petition

Venue is determined by either the Beltran v PHHC, G.R. no. 25138

III. Declaratory Relief &

Answer/E ect of Failure to File

Answer instrument or statute.

Who May File Petition for When and Where to File Petition for

Validity of Local Ordinances Ramos v CA, 180 SCRA 635

Court Action is Discretionary An action for reformation of

Eland Philippines v Garcia, G.R. no. 173289 Consolidation of Ownership

Rural Bank of Oroquieta v CA, G.R. no. 53466

Martelino v NHMFC, G.R. no. 160208 Constitutional Basis

Review of COMELEC Rulings by the Supreme

Ambil v COMELEC, 398 Phil 257 (2000)

motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law. file a motion for reconsideration for certification to the COMELEC en banc nor

E ect of denial of motion for reconsideration Form and Contents of Petition

jurisdiction of a court over the days from notice of

Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207 Against what directed

concerning the petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, especially if such loss

Service and enforcement of judgment

Deﬁnition of judicial function Constitutional issues

quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying

mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the

VI. Quo Warranto [R66]

When SolGen or Public Prosecutor

Period for pleadings and

from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the

that the intended beneficiary is the Melendres Compound Homeowners

Hearing is necessary before the Ascertainment of compensation

NPC v. Bagui, G.R. No. 164964, 17 October 2008

adequate description, the particular property or interest therein

IX. Foreclosure of Real

Recording judgment, and its e ect

Bernardez V. Reyes, G.R. No. 71832, 24 September 1991

redemptioner, other than the judgment under which such purchase was

Cases where the Court Withheld the Issuance

Sale of Mortgaged Property

with interest from the fruits, returning to the antichretic debtor the balance,

Deﬁciency Judgment, deﬁned

When no deﬁciency allowed Right to recover deﬁciency from debtor under

out of a settlement of Estate

Registration Paguyo v. Gatbunton, A.M. No. P-06-2135, 28 March 2007

These in turn are governed by three (3) different laws. Act No. 3135 governs

Four hundred and ninety-six; but the order of possession shall continue

Russell v. Vestil, G.R. No. 119347, 17 March 1999

Dadizon v. Bernadas, G.R. No. 172367, 05 June 2009

commissioners Nature of judgment in partition

Report of commissioners; Power of guardian in such

Sps. Munoz v. CA, GR No. 102693, 23 September 1992

Barrientos v. Rapal, GR No. 169594, 20 July 2011

Article 1673. The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of

The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall

premised, the inferior court may likewise pass upon these

As a rule, the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory and if not filed, the

plaintiffs was declared null and void, making the plaintiffs' right to possess

Other provisions on contempt Indirect contempt to be punished

The Rules itself is explicit on this point:

Where charge to be ﬁled

Punishment for indirect contempt contempt to set himself free.