2011 Remedial Law

Reviewer (Special Civil

Actions) – The Greenhorn
Philosopher
7 years ago

*. , prohibition and ;
5. Quo warranto; and
6. Contempt

(b) Special civil actions initiated by

filing of a Complaint:

*. Interpleader;
5. Expropriation;
6. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
F. Partition; and
H. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer.

Jurisdiction and venue

(1) The subject matter of a petition for

declaratory relief raises issues which are
not capable of pecuniary estimation and
must be filed with the Regional Trial Court
(Sec. 19[1], BP 129; Sec. 1, Rule 63). It
would be error to file the petition with the
Supreme Court which has no original
jurisdiction to entertain a petition for
declaratory relief (Untied Residents of
Dominican Hill vs. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems, 353 SCRA
782; Ortega vs. Quezon City Government,
469 SCRA 388).

Interpleader (Rule 62)

(1) Interpleader is a person who has

property in his possession or an
obligation to render, wholly or partially
without claiming any right therein, or an
interest in which in whole or in part is not
disputed by the claimants, comes to
court and asks that the persons who
consider themselves entitled to demand
compliance with the obligation be
required to litigate among themselves in
order to determine finally who is entitled
to the same.

(2) Interpleader is a special civil action

filed by a person against whom two
conflicting claims are made upon the
same subject matter and over which he
claims no interest, to compel the
claimants to interplead and to litigate
their conflicting claims among
themselves (Sec. 1).

Requisites for interpleader

(1) There must be two or more

claimants with adverse or conflicting
interests to a property in the custody or
possession of the plaintiff;

(2) The plaintiff in an action for

interpleader has no claim upon the
subject matter of the adverse claims or if
he has an interest at all, such interest is
not disputed by the claimants;

(3) The subject matter of the adverse

claims must be one and the same; and

(4) The parties impleaded must make

effective claims.

When to file

(1) Whenever conflicting claims upon

the same subject matter are or may be
made against a person who claims no
interest whatever in the subject matter, or
an interest which in whole or in part is not
disputed by the claimants, he may bring
an action against the conflicting claimants
to compel them to interplead and litigate
their several claims among themselves
(Sec. 1).

Declaratory Reliefs and Similar

Remedies (Rule 63)

(1) An action for declaratory relief is

brought to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of
the parties under a contract or a statute
for their guidance in the enforcement or
compliance with the same (Meralco vs.
Philippine Consumers Foundation, 374
SCRA 262). Thus, the purpose is to seek
for a judicial interpretation of an
instrument or for a judicial declaration of
a personʼs rights under a statute and not
to ask for affirmative reliefs like injunction,
damages or any other relief beyond the
purpose of the petition as declared under
the Rules.

(2) The subject matter in a petition for

declaratory relief is any of the following:

(a) Deed;

(b) Will;

(c) Contract or other written

instrument;

(d) Statute;

(e) Executive order or regulation;

(f) Ordinance; or

(g) Any other governmental regulation

(Sec. 1).

(3) The petition for declaratory relief is

filed before there occurs any breach or
violation of the deed, contract, statute,
ordinance or executive order or
regulation. It will not prosper when
brought after a contract or a statute has
already been breached or violated. If
there has already been a breach, the
appropriate ordinary civil action and not
declaratory relief should be filed.

Who may file the action

(1) Any person interested under a deed,

will, contract or other written instrument
or whose rights are affected by a statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance
or other governmental regulation may
before breach or violation thereof, bring
an action in the RTC to determine any
question of construction or validity arising
and for a declaration of his rights or
duties, thereunder (Sec. 1).

(2) Those who may sue under the

contract should be those with interest
under the contract like the parties, the
assignees and the heirs as required by
substantive law (Art. 1311, Civil Code).

(3) If it be a statute, executive order,

regulation or ordinance, the petitioner is
one whose rights are affected by the
same (Sec. 1, Rule 63). The other parties
are all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by the
declaration. The rights of person not
made parties to the action do not stand
to be prejudiced by the declaration (Sec.
2).

Requisites of action for declaratory

relief

(1) The subject matter must be a deed,

will, contract or other written instrument,
statute, executive order or regulation or
ordinance;

(2) The terms of said document or the

validity thereof are doubtful and require
judicial construction;

(3) There must have been no breach of

said document;

(4) There must be actual justiciable

controversy or the ripening seeds of one(
there is threatened litigation the
immediate future); there must be
allegation of any threatened, imminent
and inevitable violation of petitionerʼs
right sought to be prevented by the
declaratory relief sought;

(5) The controversy is between

persons whose interests are adverse;

(6) The issue must be ripe for judicial

determination e.g. administrative
remedies already exhausted;

(7) The party seeking the relief has

legal interest in the controversy; and

(8) Adequate relief is not available thru

other means.

(9) Stated otherwise, the requisites are:

(a) There must be a justiciable

controversy;

(b) The controversy must be between

persons whose interests are adverse;

(c) The party seeking the relief must

have legal interest in the controversy; and

(d) The issue is ripe for judicial

determination (Republic vs. Orbecido III,
472 SCRA 114).

When court may refuse to make

judicial declaration

(1) Grounds for the court to refuse to

exercise declaratory relief;

(a) A decision would not terminate the

uncertainty or controversy which gave
rise to the action; or

(b) The declaration or construction is

not necessary and proper under the
circumstances as when the instrument or
the statute has already been breached
(Sec. 5).

(4) In declaratory relief, the court is

given the discretion to act or not to act on
the petition. It may therefore choose not
to construe the instrument sought to be
construed or could refrain from declaring
the rights of the petitioner under the deed
or the law. A refusal of the court to
declare rights or construe an instrument
is actually the functional equivalent of the
dismissal of the petition.

(5) On the other hand, the court does

not have the discretion to refuse to act
with respect to actions described as
similar remedies. Thus, in an action for
reformation of an instrument, to quiet or
to consolidate ownership, the court
cannot refuse to render a judgment (Sec.
5).

Conversion to ordinary action

(1) If before final termination of the

case, a breach should take place, the
action may be converted into ordinary
action to avoid multiplicity of suits
(Republic vs. Orbecido, G.R. No. 154380,
Oct. 5, 2005).

(2) Ordinary civil action – plaintiff

alleges that his right has been violated by
the defendant; judgment rendered is
coercive in character; a writ of execution
may be executed against the defeated
party.

(3) Special civil action of declaratory

relief – an impending violation is sufficient
to file a declaratory relief; no execution
may be issued; the court merely makes a
declaration.

Proceedings considered as similar

remedies

(1) Similar remedies are:

(a) Action for reformation of an

instrument;

(b) Action for quieting of title; and

(c) Action to consolidate ownership

(Art. 1607, Civil Code).

Reformation of an instrument

(1) It is not an action brought to reform

a contract but to reform the instrument
evidencing the contract. It presupposes
that there is nothing wrong with the
contract itself because there is a meeting
of minds between the parties. The
contract is to be reformed because
despite the meeting of minds of the
parties as to the object and cause of the
contract, the instrument which is
supposed to embody the agreement of
the parties does not reflect their true
agreement by reason of mistake,
inequitable conduct or accident. The
action is brought so the true intention of
the parties may be expressed in the
instrument (Art. 1359, CC).

(2) The instrument may be reformed if

it does not express the true intention of
the parties because of lack of skill of the
person drafting the instrument (Art. 1363,
CC). If the parties agree upon the
mortgage or pledge of property, but the
instrument states that the property is sold
absolutely or with a right of repurchase,
reformation of the instrument is proper
(Art. 1365, CC).

(3) Where the consent of a party to a

contract has been procured by fraud,
inequitable conduct or accident, and an
instrument was executed by the parties in
accordance with the contract, what is
defective is the contract itself because of
vitiation of consent. The remedy is not to
bring an action for reformation of the
instrument but to file an action for
annulment of the contract (Art. 1359,
CC).

(4) Reformation of the instrument

cannot be brought to reform any of the
following:

(a) Simple donation inter vivos wherein

no condition is imposed;

(b) Wills; or

(c) When the agreement is void (Art.

1666, CC).

Consolidation of ownership

(1) The concept of consolidation of

ownership under Art. 1607, Civil Code,
has its origin in the substantive provisions
of the law on sales. Under the law, a
contract of sale may be extinguished
either by legal redemption (Art. 1619) or
conventional redemption (Art. 1601).
Legal redemption (retracto legal) is a
statutory mandated redemption of a
property previously sold. For instance, a
co-owner of a property may exercise the
right of redemption in case the shares of
all the other co-owners or any of them are
sold to a third person (Art. 1620). The
owners of adjoining lands shall have the
right of redemption when a piece of rural
land with a size of one hectare or less is
alienated (Art. 1621). Conventional
redemption (pacto de retro) sale is one
that is not mandated by the statute but
one which takes place because of the
stipulation of the parties to the sale. The
period of redemption may be fixed by the
parties in which case the period cannot
exceed ten (10) years from the date of the
contract. In the absence of any
agreement, the redemption period shall
be four (4) years from the date of the
contract (Art. 1606). When the
redemption is not made within the period
agreed upon, in case the subject matter
of the sale is a real property, Art. 1607
provides that the consolidation of
ownership in the vendee shall not be
recorded in the Registry of Property
without a judicial order, after the vendor
has been duly heard.

(2) The action brought to consolidate

ownership is not for the purpose of
consolidating the ownership of the
property in the person of the vendee or
buyer but for the registration of the
property. The lapse of the redemption
period without the seller a retro exercising
his right of redemption, consolidates
ownership or title upon the person of the
vendee by operation of law. Art. 1607
requires the filing of the petition to
consolidate ownership because the law
precludes the registration of the
consolidated title without judicial order
(Cruz vs. Leis, 327 SCRA 570).

Quieting of title to real property

(1) This action is brought to remove a

cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein. The action contemplates
a situation where the instrument or a
record is apparently valid or effective but
is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
voidable or unenforceable, and may be
prejudicial to said title to real property.
This action is then brought to remove a
cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein. It may also be brought as
a preventive remedy to prevent a cloud
from being cast upon title to real property
or any interest therein (Art. 476).

(2) The plaintiff need not be in

possession of the real property before he
may bring the action as long as he can
show that he has a legal or an equitable
title to the property which is the subject
matter of the action (Art. 477).

Review of Judgments and Final Orders

or Resolution of the COMELEC and
COA (Rule 64)

(1) A judgment or final order or

resolution of the Commission on Elections
and the Commission on Audit may be
brought by the aggrieved party to the
Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule
65 (Sec. 2). The filing of a petition for
certiorari shall not stay the execution of
the judgment or final order or resolution
sought to be reviewed, unless the SC
directs otherwise upon such terms as it
may deem just (Sec. 8). To prevent the
execution of the judgment, the petitioner
should obtain a temporary restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction
because the mere filing of a petition does
not interrupt the course of the principal
case.

(2) Decisions of the Civil Service

Commission shall be appealed to the
Court of Appeals which has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over all judgments
or final orders of such commission (RA
7902).

(3) The petition shall be filed within

thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution
sought to be reviewed. The filing of a
motion for new trial or reconsideration of
said judgment or final order or resolution,
if allowed under the procedural rules of
the Commission concerned, shall
interrupt the period herein fixed. If the
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 (Sec. 3).

(4) Note that petition for review from

decisions of quasi-judicial agencies to the
CA should be within 15 days and does not
stay the decision appealed. Petition for
review from decisions of the RTC decided
in its appellate jurisdiction filed to the CA
should be filed within 15 days and stays
execution, unless the case is under the
rules of Summary Procedure. Special civil
actions of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, from Comelec and COA
should be filed within 30 days, and does
not stay the decision appealed.
Bottomline: Decisions of quasi-judicial
bodies are not stayed by appeal alone.
Decisions of regular courts are stayed on
appeal. Although in petition for review on
certiorari to the SC via Rule 45, there is
no express provision on effect of appeal
on execution.

(2) The “not less than 5 days” provision

for filing a pleading applies only to:

(a) filing an answer after a denial of a

MtD;

(b) filing an answer after denial or

service of a bill of particulars;

(c) filing an special civil action for

certiorari from a decision of the Comelec
or CoA after denial of a MfR or MNT. It
does not apply to filing appeal from
decisions of other entities after denial of a
MfR or MNT. In such cases, either the
parties have a fresh 15 days, or the
balance.

Application of Rule 65 under Rule 64

(1) Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution

reads, “unless otherwise provided by the
Constitution or by law, any decision, order
or ruling of each commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within
30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
The provision was interpreted by the
Supreme Court to refer to certiorari under
Rule 65 and not appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, 88
SCRA 251; Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA