Interpleader (Rule 62)

Purpose and The remedy of interpleader is afforded not to protect a person against double liability but to
Essence protect him against a double vexation in respect of one liability.

When Interpleader Sec. 1. When interpleader proper. –

is proper 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.
Jurisdiction 1. Suit involves Personal Property
a. RTC à Exceeds 300k outside Metro Manila; Exceeds 400k within Metro
Manila --- less, MTC.
2. Suit involves Real Property
a. RTC à Exceeds 20k outside Metro Manila; Exceeds 50k within Metro
Manila --- less, MTC
Venue 1. Suit involves Personal Property à Residence of plaintiff or defendant at the
election of plaintiff
2. Suit involves Real Property à Where the property or any portion thereof located
Impropriety of à An action for interpleader must be filed within a reasonable time after the dispute has
interpleader as arisen, otherwise it may be barred by laches. Note: where a party was aware of the dispute
remedy and in fact had been sued by one of the claimants and the former did not implead the other
claimant, he can no longer invoke the remedy of interpleader (Wack Wack Golf & Country
Club Inc v. Lee Won, GR L-123851, 1976)
à Interpleader cannot be availed of to resolve an issue of breach of undertakings made by
defendants, which issues should be resolved in an ordinary civil action for specific
performance. (Beltran v PHHC, GR L-251138, 1969)
à Where there are no conflicting claims among the defendants, such that their respective
claims are separate and distinct from each other, the complaint for interpleader may be
dismissed for lack of cause of action (Vda. De Camilo v Aranio, GR L-15653, 1961)

INTERPLEADER (RULE 62) INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 19

An original action
An action of interpleader presupposes that the
plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of
the action OR has an interest therein which, in
whole or in part, is not disputed by the other
parties to the action
The defendants are being sued in order to
implead them.
Commenced by filing a complaint before the
proper court
Remedy in case of adverse decision is for the
aggrieved party to appeal
The period for defendants to file answer is 15
days from service of summons
An ancilliary action
A complaint in intervention is brought by a person who:
1) has legal interest over the subject matter of the action; 2) or in
the success of either of the parties; 3) or an interest against
both; 4) or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the
court or an officer thereof.
The defendants are already original parties to the pending suit.
Availed of by the filing of a MOTION with leave of court to file
intervention together with the attached pleading in intervention.
Remedy in case of denial of intervention is for the aggrieved
party to appeal OR file the claim in a separate action
The period to file answer is within 15 days from notice of the
order admitting the intervention.

Procedure
1. File a complaint for interpleader
2. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an ORDER requiring the conflicting claimants to
interplead with one another. If the interest of justice so require, the court MAY direct in such order that the
subject matter be paid or delivered to the court. (Sec. 2)
3. SUMMONS shall be served upon the conflicting claimants, together with a copy of the complaint AND
order. (Sec. 3)
4. 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.

1
 a. The period to file the answer shall be tolled and if the motion is denied, the movant may file his
answer within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than 5 days in any event,
reckoned from notice of denial. (Sec. 4)
5. Each claimant shall file his ANSWER setting forth his claim within 15 days from service of summons upon
him, serving a copy thereof upon each of the other conflicting claimants who MAY file their REPLY
thereto as provided by these Rules.
a. If any claimant fails to plead within the time herein fixed, the court MAY, on motion, declare him
IN DEFAULT, and thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect to the
subject matter.
b. The parties in an interpleader action MAY file
i. Counterclaims
ii. Cross claims
iii. Third party complaints
iv. And responsive pleadings thereto. (Sec. 5)
6. Pre-trial
7. After the pleadings of the conflicting claimants have been filed, and pre-trial has been conducted in
accordance with the Rules, the court shall proceed to determine their respective rights and adjudicate
their several claims. (Sec. 6)
NOTE: 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 charge upon the subject matter of the action, UNLESS the
court shall order otherwise. (Sec. 7)

Jurisprudence
Lui Enterprises v. Zuellig Pharma, March 12, 2014
An interpleader complaint may be filed by a lessee against those who have conflicting claims over the rent due for
the property leased. This remedy is for the lessee to protect him or her from double vexation in respect of one
liability. He or she may file the interpleader case to extinguish his or her obligation to pay rent, remove him or her
from the adverse claimants’ dispute, and compel the parties with conflicting claims to litigate among themselves.

An adverse claimant may be declared in default. The consequence of the default is that the court may render
judgment barring the defaulted claimant from any claim in respect to the subject matter. (Keep in mind: The Rules
would not have allowed claimants in interpleader cases to be declared in default if it would “ironically defeat the
very purpose of the suit.” )

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Metro Container Corporation, G.R. No. 127913, Sept. 13, 2001
It should be remembered that an action of interpleader is afforded to protect a person not against double liability
but against double vexation in respect of one liability. It requires, as an indispensable requisite, that "conflicting
claims upon the same subject matter are or may 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 disputed by the claimants."
The decision in Civil Case No. 6202 resolved the conflicting claims insofar as payment of rentals was concerned.
Therefore, there is no more conflicting claim to be resolved. The action of interpleader is improper.

Ocampo v. Tirona, April 6, 2005

As a stakeholder, Tirona should have used reasonable diligence in hailing the contending claimants to court.
Tirona need not have awaited actual institution of a suit by Ocampo against her before filing a bill of interpleader.
An action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know the person to whom to pay rentals due to
conflicting claims on the property.

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 to court and asks that the persons who
claim the said property or 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 one or the other thing. The remedy is
afforded not to protect a person against a double liability but to protect him against a double vexation in respect of
one liability. When the court orders that the claimants litigate among themselves, there arises in 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 interpleader and not a cross-complaint

2
 Arreza v. Diaz, Jr., August 30, 2001
Issue: W/N Diaz can still file a separate complaint against the petitioner on the ground that he is a builder in good
faith and consequently, recover the value of the improvements introduced by him on the subject lot. (Note: there
was an original action of interpleader filed wherein Arreza won and the decision became final and executory. Diaz
filed a separate action for reimbursement of improvements on lot). NO.

The court in a complaint for interpleader shall determine the rights and obligations of the parties and adjudicate
their respective claims. Such rights, obligations, and claims could only be adjudicated if put forward by the
aggrieved party in assertion of his rights. That party in this case referred to respondent Diaz. The second
paragraph of Section 5 of Rule 62 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the parties in an interpleader
action may file counterclaims, cross-claims, third party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto, "as provided
by these Rules." The second paragraph was added to Section 5 to expressly authorize the additional pleadings
and claims enumerated therein, in the interest of a complete adjudication of the controversy and its incidents.

Pursuant to said Rules, respondent should have filed his claims against petitioner Arreza in the interpleader action.
Having asserted his rights as a buyer in good faith in his answer, and praying relief therefor, respondent Diaz
should have crystallized his demand into specific claims for reimbursement by petitioner Arreza. This he failed to
do. In Baclayon v CA (182 SCRA 761, 1990.), we ruled that “it is a cherished rule of procedure that a court should
always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds in
future litigation. The defendant having failed to set up such alternative defenses and chosen or elected to rely on
one only, the overruling thereof was a complete determination of the controversy between the parties which bars a
subsequent action based upon an unpleaded defense, or any other cause of action, except that of Failure of the
complaint to state a cause of action and of lack of jurisdiction of the Court. The determination of the issue joined by
the parties constitutes res judicata.”

Del Carmen v. Spouses Sabordo, G.R. No. 181723, August 11, 2014
Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor
cannot accept or refuses to accept payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. Consignation is
necessarily judicial. Non compliance with requisites of valid consignation renders the consignation void.

Tender of payment is the manifestation by the debtor to the creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with
the offer of immediate performance. Tender is the antecedent of consignation. Tender of payment may be
extrajudicial.

Tender and consignation, where validly made, produces the effect of payment and extinguishes the obligation.

In the case of Arzaga v. Rumbaoa, this Court ruled that the deposit made with the court by the plaintiff is
considered a valid payment of the amount adjudged, even without a prior tender of payment thereof because the
plaintiff, upon making such deposit expressly petitioned the court that the defendants be notified to receive the
tender of payment.

In the instant case, however, petitioner and her co-heirs, upon making the deposit with the RTC, did not ask the
trial court that respondents be notified to receive the amount that they have deposited. In fact, there was no tender
of payment. Instead, what petitioner and her co-heirs prayed for is that respondents and RPB be directed to
interplead with one another to determine their alleged respective rights over the consigned amount; that
respondents be likewise directed to substitute the subject lots with other real properties as collateral for their loan
with RPB and that RPB be also directed to accept the substitute real properties as collateral for the said loan.
Nonetheless, the trial court correctly ruled that interpleader is not the proper remedy because RPB did not make
any claim whatsoever over the amount consigned by petitioner and her co-heirs with the court.

Note: Under Article 1256, the only instances where prior tender of payment is excused are: (1) when the creditor is
absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment; (2) when the creditor is incapacitated to receive
the payment at the time it is due; (3) when, without just cause, the creditor refuses to give a receipt; (4) when two
or more persons claim the same right to collect; and (5) when the title of the obligation has been lost. None of
these instances are present in the instant case. Hence, the fact that the subject lots are in danger of being
foreclosed does not excuse petitioner and her co-heirs from tendering payment to respondents, as directed by the
court.

3
 Pasricha v. Don Luis Dizon Realty, Inc., March 14, 2008
Petitioners’ non-payment of rentals was due to the fact that they did not know to whom payment should be made.
However, this did not justify their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they were not without any remedy.
They should have availed of the provisions in the Civil Code of consignation of payment and of the Rules of Court
on interpleader.

Article 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the
debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due…. Consignation alone
shall produce the same effect in the following cases: (4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect;
Consignation shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of a judicial authority, before whom the
tender of payment shall be proved in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation in other cases.

In the instant case, consignation alone would have produced the effect of payment of the rentals. The rationale for
consignation is to avoid the performance of an obligation becoming more onerous to the debtor by reason of
causes not imputable to him. Petitioners claim that they made a written tender of payment and actually prepared
vouchers for their monthly rentals. But that was insufficient to constitute a valid tender of payment. Even assuming
that it was valid tender, still, it would not constitute payment for want of consignation of the amount. Well-settled is
the rule that tender of payment must be accompanied by consignation in order that the effects of payment may be
produced.

Moreover, Rule 62 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 1. When interpleader proper. - 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.

Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals
should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or on the right to collect). The remedy is afforded not to
protect a person against double liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one liability.
Notably, instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners opted to refrain from making payments.

4
 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (Rule 63)

Purposes 1. To secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under
the statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or
compliance therewith.
2. To seek an interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument or
governmental regulation.

It is an anticipatory remedy
Jurisdiction - RTC has jurisdiction because the subject matter in an action for declaratory relief is
incapable of pecuniary estimation under Sec. 19 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980 (City of Lapu-Lapu v Philippine Economic Zone Authority, GR No. 184203,
2014.)

Venue - Personal action (an action not founded upon the privity of real rights or real property.)
- Rule 4, Sec. 2 governs: “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 where he may be found at the election of the plaintiff.”
- Plaintiff may file an action for declaratory relief in the RTC where he resides or the
RTC where defendant resides.

Requisites for propriety of petition

1. Justiciable - a justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate
controversy or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory
- The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance, or other governmental
regulation;
o Decisions of a court or a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial powers or
functions cannot be the subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief
BECAUSE relief from such decision may be availed of using other remedies.
(The Honorable Monetary Board v Philippine Veterans Bank, GR No 189571,
2015)
- The construction or validity of the subject matter is doubtful and requires judicial
intervention or construction (Santos v Aquino, 94 Phil 65) and adequate relief is not
available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.
- Two kinds of regulations issued by administrative bodies
o Legislative Rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to
implement a primary legislation by providing details thereof. It must be
published.
o Interpretative Rules are designed to provide guidelines to the law which the
administrative agency is in charge of enforcing.
In determining whether or not there is a justiciable controversy, courts look into:
o Legislative Rules – 1. Is the Rule within the delegated authority of the admin
agency; 2. Is it reasonable; 3. Was it issued pursuant to proper procedure
o Interpretative Rules – Is the court free: 1. To give force to the rule; 2. To go the
opposite extreme and substitute its judgment; or 3. Give some intermediate
degree of authoritative weight to the interpretative rule. (Commissioner of
Customs v Hypermix Feeds Corporation, GR No 179579, 2012)

2. Actual or There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between
ripening seeds persons whose interests are adverse.
of controversy
“Actual controversy” means that a cause of action has arisen or will arise inevitably. Not
necessarily a time issue.

5
 By “ripening seeds" it is meant that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it has
accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and violence of a full blown
battle that looms ahead. The concept describes a state of facts indicating imminent and
inevitable litigation provided that the issue is not settled and stabilized by tranquilizing
declaration.

3. Legal interest - Locus standi must be present; meaning the plaintiff must have a personal or
substantial interest in the case such that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of
the challenged governmental act or deed, will, contract or other written instrument.
- The interest must be material, not merely incidental. It is interest that will be affected
by the decree, law or regulation.

4. Ripe for judicial - The issue raised by petitioners is not yet ripe for judicial determination. Nowhere in
determination the assailed resolutions and ordinance does it show that the public respondents acted
on private respondents application with finality. Public respondents merely endorsed
the application to the HLURB which is the sole regulatory board for housing and land
development. The issue not being ripe for determination, an action for declaratory
relief cannot prosper. (Ferrer v Roco, GR No 174129, 2010)
- “The issue raised is ripe for judicial determination because litigation is inevitable.”
(Commissioner of Customs v Hypermix Feeds Corporation, GR No 179579, 2012)

5. Filing before breach of contract or statute

6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding

Subject Matter of - The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
Declaratory Relief instrument, statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance, or other governmental
regulation;
- Decisions of a court or a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial powers or
functions cannot be the subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief BECAUSE
relief from such decision may be availed of using other remedies (The Honorable
Monetary Board v Philippine Veterans Bank, GR No 189571, 2015)
- Court orders or decisions CANNOT be the subject matter of declaratory relief. They
are not included within the purview of the words “other written instrument.” The same
principle applies to orders, resolutions, or decisions of quasi-judicial bodies. (DILG v.
Gatuz, G.R. No. 191176, October 14, 2015)

Parties Sec. 2. Parties. – All persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by
the declaration shall be made parties; and no declaration shall, except as otherwise
provided by these Rules, prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the action.
Note: they are necessary parties.
Participation of the Sec. 3, Notice on Solicitor General. – In any action which involves the validity of a
Solicitor General statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the Solicitor
General shall be notified by the party assailing the same and shall be entitled to be heard
upon such question.

Sec. 4. Local government ordinances. – In any action involving the validity of a local
government ordinance, the corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the local government
unit involved shall be similarly notified and entitled to be heard. If such ordinance is
alleged to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor General shall also be notified and be entitled
to be heard.

When court may Sec. 5. Court action Discretionary. – Except in actions falling under the second
refuse to make a paragraph of Sec. 1 of this Rule, the court, motu proprio, OR upon motion, MAY refuse to
declaration exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments:
1. In any case where a decision would NOT TERMINATE the uncertainty or
controversy which gave rise to the action; or

6
 2. in any case where the declaration of rights or construction is NOT NECESSARY
and proper under the circumstances.

Conversion to Sec. 6. Conversion into ordinary action. – If before the final termination of the case, a
ordinary civil action breach or violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance,
or any other governmental regulation should take place, the action may thereupon be
converted into an ordinary action, and the parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings
as may be necessary or proper.

Jurisprudence on - “Although the petition was for certiorari under Rule 65, in essence, it seeks the
Declaratory Relief declaration of unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance and
executive order. It thus partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief over
which the Supreme Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.” (The Liga ng
mga Barangay National v The City Mayor of Manila, Hon. Jose Atienza, Jr., GR No
154599, 2004)
- Under the Rules of Court, petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to
question judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts. Since the issuance of an EO is
not judicial, quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and prohibition
is an incorrect remedy; instead a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper recourse to
assail the validity of EO 7. Even though the petition is styled as a petition for
certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by the SC of the unconstitutionality or
illegality of the questioned executive order. It, thus, partakes of the nature of a
petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original,
jurisdiction. As such, this petition must fail because the SC does not have original
jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief eve if only questions of law are
involved. (Galicto v. Pres. Aquino, February 28, 2012)
- “There is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for declaratory relief that
proscribes the filing of a counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or
contract subject of the complaint. A special civil action after all is not essentially
different from an ordinary civil action, except that the former deals with special
subject matter which makes necessary some special regulation. But the identity
between their fundamental nature is such that the same rules governing ordinary
civil suits may and do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they
may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special civil
actions.” (Department of Budget and Management v Manila’s Finest Retirees
Association, Inc., GR No. 169466, 2007)
- The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules by an administrative
agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the
regular courts. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review in the courts,
including the regional trial courts. Judicial power includes the duty of courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.” (Commissioner of Customs v Hypermix Feeds
Corporation, GR No 179579, 2012)
- Decisions of a court or a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial powers or
functions cannot be the subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief BECAUSE
relief from such decision may be availed of using other remedies.
o The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board although not included in the
list of quasi-judicial agencies under Sec 9 of BP 129 is still considered a quasi-
judicial agency because that list is not exclusive. As long as the administrative
agency is exercising quasi-judicial functions it cannot be the subject of an

7
 action for declaratory relief. (The Honorable Monetary Board v Philippine
Veterans Bank, GR No 189571, 2015)

Examples of Similar Remedies

- These 3 remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief because they also result in the adjudication
of the legal rights of the litigants

1. Reformation of Nature –
Instrument (Art. - Reformation is that remedy in equity by means of which a written instrument is
1359 – 1369) made or construed so as to express or conform the real intention of the parties
(Sarming v Dy, GR No 133643, 2002)

Instances when Reformation may be warranted –

1. There was a meeting of the minds, however, the instrument does not express the
true intention of the parties by reason of fraud, inequitable conduct, mistake or
accident (FIMA); one of the parties may ask for reformation. if no meeting of the
minds then no reformation can be had, instead file for annulment of contract. (Art.
1359.)
a. Sarming v Dy – While intentions involve a state of mind which
sometimes may be difficult to decipher, a party or parties subsequent
acts and contemporaneous acts can be reflective of one’s intention. All
the requisites of Art. 1359 being present, there was a valid cause of
action, and the true intent of the parties was shown by their
subsequent and contemporaneous acts.
2. Mutual Mistake of the parties led to failure of instrument to express true intention of
the parties (Art. 1361.)
3. One party mistaken while the other party acted fraudulently or inequitably in such a
way that the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, the party
mistaken may ask for reformation. Art. 1362.
4. One party mistaken while the other party knew or believed that the instrument did
not state their real agreement and concealed such fact from the former. (Art. 1363.)
5. The drafter or clerk or typist of the instrument, through bad faith, ignorance,
negligence, or lack of skill (BINS) fails to make the instrument express the true
intention of the parties, the court may order that instrument reformed (Art. 1364.)
6. If mortgage or pledge was the true agreement of the parties but the instrument
states that the property is sold absolutely or with a right of repurchase, reformation
is proper (Art. 1465.)
7. Reformation may be ordered at the instance of either party or his successors in
interest, if the mistake was mutual; otherwise, upon petition of the injured party, or
his heirs and assigns (Art. 1368)

When Reformation cannot be had (J: Why can’t reformation be had with these grounds?)
1. Simple donation inter vivos with no condition imposed (Art. 1366.)
2. Wills (Art. 1366.)
3. The real agreement is void (Art. 1366.)
4. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument, he cannot
subsequently ask for reformation (Art. 1367)

Other provisions –
Art. 1360. Principles of general law on reformation of instrument are adopted so long as
not contrary to Civil Code provisions.
Art. 1369. The procedure for the reformation of instruments shall be governed by the
Rules of Court.

Jurisprudence –

8
 - “The remedy of reformation is an extraordinary one and is subject to limitations
provided by law. Our law and jurisprudence set such limitations, among which is
laches. A suit for reformation of an instrument may be barred by the lapse of time.
The prescriptive period for actions based upon a written contract and for
reformation of an instrument is 10 years under Art. 1144 of the Civil Code.
Prescription is intended to suppress stale and fraudulent claims arising from
transactions like the one at bar which facts had become so obscure from the lapse
of time or defective memory. Respondent corporation had 10 years from 1968 the
time when the contract of lease was executed to file an action for reformation.
Unfortunately, it did so only on May 15, 1992 or 24 years after the cause of action
accrued.” (Rosello-Bentir v Hon. Leanda, GR No 128991, 2000)
- “An action for reformation of an instrument is instituted as a special civil action for
declaratory relief.” (Rosello-Bentir v Hon. Leanda, GR No 128991, 2000)

2. Quieting of Title Nature of the Remedy –

(Art. 476 – 481) - Common law remedy grounded on equity.
- The court is tasked to determine the rights of the complainant and the other
claimants, not only to put things in their proper place, to make the one who has no
rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for every cloud
of doubt over the property dissipate. This would allow the complainant to introduce
improvements, to use, and even to abuse the property without fear.

Requisites –
1. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property
which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said
property (Art. 477)
a. Legal Title denotes registered ownership
b. Equitable title means beneficial ownership
2. The cloud is brought by any proceeding, record, instrument, claim, encumbrance
(PRICE) which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact voidable,
invalid, ineffective, or unenforceable (VIIU) and may be prejudicial to title. (Art. 476)

When Quieting of Title is proper –

1. A cloud on title to real property or any interest therein exists (Art. 476)
2. To prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein
(Art. 476)
3. To remove a cloud when the contract, instrument, or other obligation has been
extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription (Art.
478)

Effect if Complaint granted – The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he
may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have
redounded to the plaintiff’s benefit (Art. 479.)

Other provisions –
Art. 480. The principles of general law on quieting of title are adopted insofar as not in
conflict with Civil Code.

Art. 481. The procedure for quieting of title or removal of cloud therefrom shall be
governed by the Rules of Court. (Accdg to property cases this doesn’t apply to
improvements or boundary disputes)

Jurisdiction –
1. When action to quiet title brought as is court acquires jurisdiction based on
assessed value of the real property involved:

9
 a.Exceeds 20k outside Metro Manila or 50k in Metro Manila, the RTC
has exclusive original jurisdiction
b. Less than 20k outside Metro Manila or 50k in Metro Manila, the MTC
has jurisdiction.
2. When action to quiet title brought as a special civil action under Rule 63:
a. Sec. 1 does not categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed
before the RTC. Sec. 1 uses the word “may” therefore this provision
does not override the statutory provision on jurisdiction as stated in BP
129.

Jurisprudence –
- “An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual
breach of the instruments or regulations involved or of rights arising thereunder.
The purpose of declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the
rights and obligations of the parties and not to settle issues arising from an
alleged breach thereof. A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy
for ending controversies that have not reached the state where another relief is
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 invasion
of rights, and commission of wrongs.” (Malana v Tappa, GR 181303, 2009)
- An action to quiet title is a real action and the assessed value of the property is
controlling in determining which court has jurisdiction over the action. Where the
assessed value of the property is less than 20k outside Metro Manila and 50k in
Metro Manila, the MTC has jurisdiction and not the RTC. Since the assessed
value is only P410, it was proper for the RTC to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction. (Malana v Tappa, GR 181303, 2009)
- Spouses De Guzman sold parcel of land with right to repurchase. When the 1
year redemption period had expired, the purchaser had been substituted to all
the rights, title, and interest and claim of the Spouses De Guzman to the subject
property. Upon the De Guzman spouses’ deaths they had no more rights to the
subject property to pass on by succession to the petitioners. Petitioners do not
have any legal or equitable title or interest in the real property. (De Guzman v
Tabangao Realty Incorporated, GR No. 154262, 2015)
- “The suit for quieting of title was prompted by petitioners’ letter-opposition to the
respondent’s application for registration of the subject property in their name.
Respondent filed the action to obtain a declaration of his rights as well as to
prevent a cloud from being case upon his application for a title. This properly
falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC since under Rule 63, an action to quiet
title to real property or remove clouds MAY be brought in the appropriate RTC.”
(Spouses Sabitsana v Muertegui, GR No 181359, 2013)
- In order to file an action for quieting of title the plaintiff must show that he has a
legal or equitable title to the property. Plaintiff’s alleged that they are the legal
heirs of the deceased who had entered into a conditional contract to sell with
the National Housing Authority for the purchase of a house and lot on
installment basis. Plaintiffs did not show that the deceased was the registered
owner of the property, neither did they show that they were qualified successors
under the contract. Having not proven that they have a legal or equitable title,
they cannot now file an action for declaratory relief (Mananquil v Moico, GR No
180076, 2012)
- An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual
breach of the instruments involved or of the rights arising thereunder. Since 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 thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to

10
 settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained
before the breach or violation of the statute, deed or contract to which it refers.
A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending controversies
that have not reached the state where another relief is 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 invasion of rights, and a
commission of wrongs. In the present case, although petitioner's complaint
is captioned as Quieting of Title and Damages, all that petitioner prayed
for, is for the court to uphold the validity of its titles as against that of
respondents'. This is consistent with the nature of the relief in an action for
declaratory relief where the judgment in the case can be carried into effect
without requiring the parties to pay damages or to perform any act. (Phil-Ville
Development and Housing Corp. v. Bonifacio, et.al., June 8, 2011)
- The test for determining whether a complaint did or did not state a cause of
action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the
truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, a judge may validly grant
the relief demanded in the complaint. Petitioners cause of action relates to an
action to quiet title under Art. 476 of the Civil Code. A "cloud on title" is an
outstanding instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which
is actually invalid or inoperative, but which may nevertheless impair or
affect injuriously the title to property. In order that an action for quieting of
title may prosper, two requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has
a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action;
and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting
cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. If the invalidity or
inoperativeness of the instrument is not apparent on the face of such
instrument, and it has to be proved by extrinsic evidence. (Aquino v. Quiazon,
2015.)

3. Consolidation - Consolidation of ownership may occur in favor of the vendee when the vendor fails
of Ownership to comply with Art. 1616. But such consolidation shall not be recorded in the
(Art. 1607) Registry of Property without a judicial order and only after the vendor has been duly
heard (Art. 1607.)

Art. 1616. The vendor cannot avail himself of the right to repurchase without
returning to the vendee the price of the sale, and in addition:
1. The expenses of the contract, and any other legitimate payments made by
reason of the sale;
2. The necessary and useful expenses made on the thing sold.

- Petition for Consolidation of Ownership is an action incapable of pecuniary

estimation. It falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC (Sec. 19, BP
129)

11
Judge’s Questions in class:
1. Would you say that a petition for declaratory relief is a preventive measure?
2. Distinguish declaratory relief AND advisory opinion.
3. Which court has Jurisdiction over declaratory relief?
4. Can the SC an original action for declaratory relief? NO
5. What are the requisites?
6. Differentiate: actual or ripening seeds of controversy AND ripe for judicial determination.
A justiciable controversy is a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests, which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law. It must be
appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, admitting of specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in
character. It must not be conjectural or merely anticipatory, which only seeks for an opinion that advises
what the law would be on a hypothetical state of facts.
An aspect of the "case-or-controversy" requirement' is the requisite of "ripeness." x x x In our jurisdiction, the
issue of ripeness is generally treated in terms of actual injury to the plaintiff. Hence, a question is ripe for
adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.
An alternative road to review similarly taken would be to determine whether an action has already been
accomplished or performed by a branch of government before the courts may step in.
The requisite of ripeness has a two-fold aspect: fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to
the parties entailed by withholding court consideration. The first aspect requires that the issue tendered is a
purely legal one and that the regulation subject of the case is a "final agency action." The second aspect
mandates that the effects of the regulation are felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.
7. W/N questioning validity of statute can be considered a political question. Why or why not?
8. What happens when issue becomes moot? What happens?
9. Can you file a third party complaint? NOT allowed. That third party might not have an interest in the original
complaint.
10. Counter claim can you file? YES. Of course.

12
 Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

Nature and An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise (Sec. 1). Generally, it is an
purpose of action by the Government against individuals.
the action
Sec. 1. Action by Government against individuals. – An action for the usurpation of a public office,
position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines against:
1. A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully hold or exercises a public office,
position, or franchise;
2. A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by provision of law, constitutes a
ground for the forfeiture of his office;
3. An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority to act.

A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to use or exercise a
franchise or an office and to ouster the holder from the enjoyment thereof, if the claim is not well
founded or his right to enjoy the privilege is forfeited. (Castro v Carlos, GR 194994, 2013)

Note: Quo warranto will not lie if the public officer is holding a temporary appointment to the
office.
Parties to the Sec. 6. Parties and contents of petition against usurpation. – When the action is against a person
Petition for usurping a public office, position or franchise, the petition shall set forth:
1. (Petitioner) The name of the person who claims to be entitled to the office, position or
franchise, with an averment of his right to the same and that respondent is unlawfully in
possession thereof.
2. (Respondent) The person usurping a public office, position or franchise.
3. (Other petitioners) All persons who claim to be entitled to the public office, position or
franchise MAY be made parties and their respective rights to such public office, position
or franchise determined, in the same action.

Respondent:
Sec. 1. Action by government against individuals. – An action for the usurpation of a public office,
position or franchise may be commenced in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
1. A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office,
position or franchise;
2. A public officer who does or suffers an act which by the provision of law constitutes a
ground for the forfeiture of his office
3. An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority to act.

When Sec. 2. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action. – The Solicitor
government General or public prosecutor:
MUST 1. When directed by the President of the Philippines; or
commence 2. When upon complaint; or
action 3. Otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in Sec. 1 can be
against
established by proof, must commence such action.

When Sec. 3. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action. – The solicitor
government general or a public prosecutor MAY WITH the permission of the court in which the action is to be
MAY commenced, bring such action at the request AND upon the relation of another person;
commence but in such case the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the expense and cost of
an action the action in an amount approved by (the court) and to be deposited in the court by the person at
against whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought.
individuals
Sec. 4. When hearing had on application for permission to commence action. – Upon application
for permission to commence such action in accordance with the next preceding section,

13
 1. the court shall direct that notice be given to the respondent so that he may be heard in
opposition thereto;
2. And if permission is granted, the court shall issue an order to that effect
a. Copies of which shall be served on all interested parties.
3. And the petition shall then be filed within the period ordered by the court.

When Sec. 5. When an individual may commence such action – A person claiming to be entitled to a
individual public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action
may therefor in his own name.
commence
an action Note: such person must have a clear right to the office or position.

Period for Sec. 8. Period for pleadings and proceedings may be reduced; action given precedence. –
pleadings The court MAY reduce the period provided by these Rules for filing pleading and for all other
and proceedings in the action in order to secure the most expeditious determination of the matters
proceedings involved therein consistent with the rights of the parties. Such action may be given precedence
reduced over any other civil matter pending in the court.

Venue Sec. 7. Venue. – An action under the preceding six sections can be brought ONLY in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area where the respondent or any of the respondent resides.

But when the Solicitor General commences the action, it may be brought in the RTC Manila City,
in the CA, or in the SC.
Effect of
judgment Judgment in quo warranto action
Sec. 9. Judgment where usurpation found. – When the respondent is found guilty of usurping,
intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position, or franchise, judgment
shall be rendered that:
1. Such respondent be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and
2. That the petitioner or relator, as the case may be, recover his costs.
Such further judgment 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.

Rights of a person adjudged entitled to public office

Sec. 10. Rights of persons adjudged entitled to public office; delivery of books and papers;
damages – If judgment be rendered in favor of the person averred in the complaint to be entitled
to the public office, he MAY, AFTER taking oath of office AND executing any office bond required
by law:
1. Take upon himself the execution of the office, and
2. May immediately thereafter demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the
respondent’s custody or control appertaining to the office to which the judgment relates.
3. The person adjudged entitled to the office may also bring an action against the
respondent to recover damages sustained by such person by reason of the usurpation.

If the respondent refuses or neglects to delivery any book or paper pursuant to such demand, he
may be punished for contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court.

Limitations Sec. 11. Limitations. – Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to:
on the period 1. authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless
to file action the same be commenced within 1 year AFTER:
a. the cause of such ouster OR
b. the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position arose;
2. Nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance with Sec 10., unless the same be
commenced within 1 year AFTER entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner’s right
to the office in question.

14
 QUO WARRANTO UNDER RULE 66
Issue is the legality of the occupancy of the office by virtue
of a legal appointment.
Grounds: usurpation, forfeiture, or illegal association.
(Sec. 1, Rule 66, ROC)
Presupposes that the respondent is already actually
holding office and action must be commenced within 1
year from cause of ouster or from the time the right of the
petitioner to hold office arose.
Petitioner is person entitled to office.
Person adjudged entitled to office may bring a separate
action against the respondent to recover damages. (Sec.
11, Rule 66, ROC)
QUO WARRANTO UNDER OMNIBUS ELECTION
CODE
Issue is eligibility of the person elected
Grounds: ineligibility or disqualification to hold office
(Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code)
Petition must be filed within 10 days from the
proclamation of the candidate.
Petitioner may be any voter even if he is not entitled to
the office.
Actual or compensatory damages are recoverable
under the Omnibus Election Code.

QUO WARRANTO MANDAMUS

Remedy to test the title to one’s office claimed by another
and has as its object the ouster of the holder from its
enjoyment
It is the proper remedy where there is usurpation or
intrusion into an office
Remedy to enforce clear legal duties and not to try
disputes
It is the proper remedy where the respondent, without
claiming any right to an office, excludes the petitioner
therefrom.

QUO WARRANTO IN ELECTIVE OFFICE QUO WARRANTO IN APPOINTIVE OFFICE

What is to be determined is the eligibility of the
candidate-elect
When candidate-elect is found to be ineligible, the court
cannot declare as elected, the candidate who obtained
the 2nd highest number of votes even if he were eligible.
What is to be determined is the legality of the
appointment
The court determines who has been legally appointed
and shall declare who is entitled to occupy the office.

Jurisprudence

Dumayas v. COMELEC, April 20, 2001

Petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning
candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his
place.

An election protest is a contest between the defeated and the winning candidates on the ground of frauds or
irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of the returns. It raises the question of
who actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the office.

Calleja, et.al., v. Panday, et.al., February 28, 2006

A complaint for quo warranto does not apply in cases against persons who usurp an office in a private corporation.

Rule 66 is limited to actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp a public office, position or franchise; public
officers who forfeit their office; and associations which act as corporations without being legally incorporated.
Actions of quo warranto against corporations or against persons who usurp an office in a corporation fall under the
jurisdiction of the SEC and are governed by its rules. However, RA No. 8799 was passed and it provides that actions
re: intra-corporate disputes and controversies re: election or appointment of corporate officers, have been transferred
to the courts of general jurisdiction (RTCs). Pursuant to RA 8799, The SC promulgated AM No. 00-11-03-SC
designating certain RTC branches to try and decide cases formerly cognizable by the SEC.

15
 Topacio v. Associate Justice Gregory Ong and OSG, December 18, 2008
The Solicitor General may suspend or turn down the institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just
and valid reasons. The SolGen has absolute discretion in choosing whether to prosecute or not to prosecute or to
abandon a prosecution already started. He may even dismiss, abandon, discontinue or compromise suits either with
or without stipulation with the other party. Abandonment of a case, however, does not mean that the SolGen may
just drop it without any legal and valid reasons, for the discretion given to him is not unlimited. Its exercise must be
within the parameters set by law and with the best interest of the State as the ultimate goal.

What was filed was a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. However, the petition partakes of the nature of a quo
warranto proceeding for it effectively seeks to declare null and void the appointment of respondent as an Associate
Justice of the Sandiganbayan for being unconstitutional. à Being a collateral attack on a public officer’s title, the
petition must be dismissed.

Title to a public office may not be contested except directly by quo warranto proceedings and it cannot be assailed
collaterally, even through mandamus or a motion to annul or set aside order. Prohibition too will not lie to inquire into
the validity of the appointment of a public officer. Prohibition is an improper remedy by which to determine the title
to an office.

Even assuming the case was one for quo warranto, the same must fail because Petitioner is a private person and
when a private person files a petition for quo warranto he must show a clear right to the contested office (Sec 5).
Petitioner conceded that he was never entitled to assume the office of Associate Justice.

General v. Urro, March 29, 2011

The Rules require that an ordinary action be based on a cause of action which is defined as an act or omission of
one party in violation of a legal right of the other which causes the latter injury. While quo warranto is a special civil
action, the existence of a cause of action is not any less required since both special and ordinary civil actions are
governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions subject only to the rules prescribed specifically for a particular special
civil action.

Quo warranto is a remedy to try disputes with respect to the title to a public office. Generally, proceedings are
commenced by the Government as the proper party-plaintiff. However, under Sec. 5, an individual may commence
such action if he claims to be entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by another. Petitioner must show that he
is entitled to the office in dispute, otherwise the action may be dismissed at any stage. The complaint must state
petitioners right to the office and the respondent’s unlawful possession thereof.

Petitioner must show a clear right to the contested office and a failure to do so warrants dismissal of the suit for lack
of cause of action. It is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant to occupy the office. A person
holding an office on an acting capacity or appointment clearly does not have a cause of action to maintain suit. The
essence of an acting appointment is its temporariness and its consequent revocability at any time by the appointing
authority.

Moro v. Del Castillo, Jr., March 30, 2011

Re: right of petitioner to be reinstated through an action for quo warranto against the present holder in the meantime
that petitioner has appealed the Ombudsman’s decision dismissing him from service on the ground of misconduct
in office.

The order of dismissal by the Ombudsman is immediately executory, regardless of an appeal therefrom. In quo
warranto, the petitioner who files the action in his name must prove that he is entitled to the office. Otherwise, the
person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and the action for quo warranto may be dismissed.
Petitioner has no clear right to the office because his dismissal was immediately effected.

16
 Liban, et.al. v. Gordon, July 15, 2009
W/N Richard Gordon forfeited his seat in the Senate by accepting the position of chairman of the Philippine National
Red Cross Board of Governors violating Sec. 13, Art. VI, Const. (that no senator or congressman may hold nay
other office or employment in government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs
or their subsidiaries during his term without forfeiting his seat)

No because petition was filed by private persons who have not shown a clear right to the office. Sec. 5 – a person
instituting quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must claim and be able to show that he is entitled to the office
in dispute, otherwise the action may be dismissed at any stage.

Assuming arguendo that petition doesn’t suffer infirmities it still fails because PNRC is a private organization
performing public functions. PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary, humanitarian a organization whose
mission is timely and effective assistance. PNRC is a member National Society of the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement (Movement) which is united and guided by its 7 Fundamental Principles. As a member of
the Movement, the PNRC has to be autonomous and must operate in conformity with the Principles.

PNRC is autonomous, neutral, and independent. To maintain autonomy it cannot be owned or controlled by the
government. Therefore, not within the ambit of Sec. 13, Art. VI, Const.

17
 Expropriation (Rule 67)

Power of Eminent Art. III, Sec. 9. “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
Domain in relation to compensation.”
Expropriation
Eminent domain is the power of the State to take private property for public use. It is an
inherent power and a necessary power for the State’s existence. As an inherent power
it need at all to be embodied in the Constitution; it is mentioned in the Constitution
solely for the purposes of limiting what is otherwise an unlimited power. Such limitation
is found in the bill of rights. Sec. 7, Art. III aims to protect individuals against the
excessive exercise of governmental powers. (Republic v. Sps. Tan Song Bok, GR No.
191448, 2011)

Breakdown of Art. III, Sec. 9:

1. Private property – Anything that can come under the dominion of man is
subject to expropriation. This includes real or personal property, tangible or
intangible properties. The only exception is money. The expropriation of
money would be a futile act because the payment of just compensation would
also be money.
2. Taken/taking – does not need to be actual physical taking or appropriation. It
includes “Compensable taking” which includes destruction, restriction,
diminution, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and
necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner, lessening or
destroying its value. It it not necessary that the owner be wholly deprived of
use of his property, nor material whether the property is removed from his
possession. (National Power Corporation v Heirs of Sangkay, GR No. 165828,
2011)
3. Public use – includes ANY use that is of “usefulness, utility or advantage or
what is productive of general benefit (of the public).”
4. Just compensation – full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the
private owner by the expropriator. Indemnity for the loss sustained as a result
of the expropriation. The basis is usually the basic or market value of the
property.

Institution of Sec. 1. The Complaint – The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of
expropriation a Verified Complaint which shall state with certainty:
proceeding 1. The right and purpose of expropriation
2. The description of the real or personal property sought to be expropriated
3. Join as defendants all persons:
a) Owning
b) Claiming to own
c) Occupying any part or interest therein, showing as far as practicable,
the separate interest of each defendant; and
d) If the title to any property appears to be in the name of the Republic,
although occupied by private individuals; or
e) The title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot
with accuracy or certainty specify who the real owners are, averment
to that effect shall be made in the complaint.
Effect of expropriation When it involves real property, a certified copy of such judgment shall be recorded in
proceedings in final and the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated, and its effect shall
executory judgments be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so described for such public use or
involving property purpose. (Sec. 13)

The plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property expropriated and
appropriate it for public use or purpose.

Note: If after the lapse of 5 years, execution has not commenced and compensation
has not been paid, owner may recover property.

Note: Owner has the right of reversion after public use or purpose for which
expropriation occurred had ceased

18
 Parties to the 1. Plaintiff – Republic of the Philippines; Local Government Units
proceeding a. LGUs issue ordinance - J: what are the contents?
2. Defendants – All persons owning, or claiming to own, or occupying any part or
interest therein
Stages in Expropriation Two stages: 1. Determination of authority to expropriate and 2. Determination of just
compensation
1. Determination of - Determination of authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent
authority to domain AND the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in
expropriate the suit.
- The first stage relates to the determination of the validity of the expropriation.
The court resolves questions like whether the expropriator has the power of
eminent domain, whether the taking is necessary, and should there be
conditions precedent for the exercise of the power, whether they have been
complied with
1.1. Filing of the
Complaint

1.2. Defenses and Sec. 3. Defenses and Objections. –

Objections
No objections or defenses:
1. If a defendant has no objection or defense to the action or taking of his
property, he may
a. file and serve notice of appearance; and
b. a manifestation to that effect,
c. specifically designating or identifying the property in which he claims
to be interested, within the time stated in the summons.
2. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same

With objections or defenses:

1. If a defendant has any objection to the filing of the complaint, or an objection
to the allegations in the complaint, or defense to the taking of his property, he
shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The answer
shall:
a. specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to
have an interest,
b. state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and
c. adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his property.
2. No counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint shall be alleged or
allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.

Failure to raise all defenses and objections:

1. A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged
2. But the court, in the interest of justice, MAY permit amendments to the answer
to be made not later than 10 days from the filing thereof.

1.3. Issuance of Sec. 4. Order of Expropriation. –

Order of 1. If objections to and defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the
Expropriation property are overruled, or
(or Order of 2. When no party appears to defend as required by this Rule,
Condemnation) 3. The court MAY issue an order of expropriation declaring:
a. That the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be
expropriated for public use or purpose as described in the complaint,
b. Upon payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date
of the taking of the property OR the filing of the complaint, whichever
came first.

Appeal:
- A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed
by any party aggrieved thereby.
- Such appeal, however, shall NOT prevent the court from determining the just
compensation to be paid.

19
 Effect of Order of Expropriation:
1. After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to
dismiss or discontinue the proceeding
2. Except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable.

2. Determination of - The court is called upon to determine the just compensation, taking into
just compensation consideration all the factors of just compensation.

2.1. Appointment of Sec. 5. Ascertainment of compensation. – Upon rendition of the order of expropriation,
commissioners the court shall appoint 3 competent AND disinterested persons as commissioners to:
1. Ascertain, and
2. Report to the court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken.

The order of appointment shall:

1. Designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by
the commissioners, and
2. Specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the court.

Copies of the order shall be served on the parties.

J: What happens when court fails to appoint commissioners?

2.2. Proceedings
before the
commissioners

2.3. Action upon

the
commissioners’
report

2.4. Rendition of
Judgment as to
compensation

2.5. Remedy of
Appeal, effect

Entry upon the property Writ of Possession is issued if entry has not been made.
and possession thereof

1. Deposit and Sec. 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government depositary.
Notice under – Upon filing of the complaint OR at any time thereafter:
Rule 67 1. And after due notice to the defendant
2. The plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the
In short: real property involved
Requirements for the 3. IF he deposits with the authorized government depositary
plaintiff to enter the 4. An amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of
property: DDS taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court.
1. Due notice to
the defendant Legal tender:
2. Deposits with 1. Such deposit shall be in money,
authorized 2. unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit
government of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand
depositary to the authorized government depositary.
3. Such deposit
shall be in Personal Property:
money unless 1. If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained
court 2. and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.
authorizes the
deposit of a What happens after deposit is made:

20
 certificate of 1. The court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to
deposit a. Place the plaintiff in possession of the property
b. And promptly submit a report thereof to the court with service of
copies to the parties

2. Application of Sec. 4, R.A. No. 8974 requires the immediate payment to the landowner of 100% of the
RA 8974 anent value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR.
immediate Note: An act to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for national
payment government infrastructure projects and for other purposes.

The term "national government projects" shall refer to all national government
infrastructure, engineering works and service contracts, including projects undertaken
by government-owned and controlled corporations, all projects covered by Republic Act
No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718, otherwise known as the Build-
Operate-and-Transfer Law, and other related and necessary activities, such as site
acquisition, supply and/or installation of equipment and materials, implementation,
construction, completion, operation, maintenance, improvement, repair, and
rehabilitation, regardless of the source of funding.

Just Compensation

1. Right of plaintiff
after judgment
and
acceptance of
payment

2. Refusal to
accept
payment

3. Effect of Non-
payment

Entry of Judgment

Jurisprudence
Dela Paz Masikip v. City of Pasig, January 23, 2006
Spouses Yusay v. Court of Appeals, April 6, 2011
Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, January 12, 2015
Republic v. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., January 25, 2012
Secretary of DPWH v. Spouses Tecson, July 1, 2013
National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit, August 24, 2011
City of Iloilo v. Hon. Contreras-Besana, February 12, 2010
Republic v. Soriano, February 25, 2015

Related Laws
Republic Act No. 10752
Republic Act No. 8974

21
 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68)

Jurisprudence

Ramos v. Mañalac, June 16, 1951

The general rule is that after a sale has been made under a decree in a foreclosure suit, the court has the power to
give possession to the purchaser, and the latter will not be driven to an action at law to obtain possession. The
power of the court to issue a process and place the purchaser in possession, is said to rest upon the ground that it
has power to enforce its own decree and thus avoid circuitous actions and vexatious litigation (Rivero de Ortega v.
Natividad, 71 Phil., 340).

The issuance of a writ of possession in a foreclosure proceeding is not an execution of judgment within the
purview of section 6, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, but is merely a ministerial and complementary duty of the
court to put an end to the litigation which the court can undertake even after the lapse of five years, provided the
statute of limitations and the rights of third person have not intervened in the meantime (Rivera v. Rupac, 61 Phil.,
201). This is the correct interpretation of section 6, Rule 39, in relation to section 3, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
This is a case where the judgment involved is already final and executed, and the properties mortgaged sold by
order of the court, and the purchaser thereof has transferred them to a third person, who now desires to be placed
in their possession. In the exercise of its interlocutory duty to put an end to the litigation and save multiplicity of
action, no plausible reason is seen why the court cannot issue a peremptory order to place the ultimate purchaser
in the possession of the property

Spouses Rosales and Sibug v. Spouses Suba, August 12, 2003

An equitable mortgage as "one which although lacking in some formality, or form or words, or other requisites
demanded by a statute, nevertheless 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 thereby ought not to be defeated by requiring compliance with the formalities
necessary to the validity of a voluntary real estate mortgage. Since the parties’ transaction is an equitable
mortgage and that the trial court ordered its foreclosure, execution of judgment is governed by Sections 2 and 3,
Rule 68.

The right of redemption is not recognized in a judicial foreclosure. "The right of redemption in relation to a
mortgage-understood in the sense of a prerogative to re-acquire mortgaged property after registration of the
foreclosure sale-exists only in the case of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. No such right is recognized
in a judicial foreclosure except only where the mortgagee is the Philippine National bank or a bank or a banking
institution.

"Where a mortgage is foreclosed extrajudicially, Act 3135 grants to the mortgagor the right of redemption within
one (1) year from the registration of the sheriff’s certificate of foreclosure sale.

"Where the foreclosure is judicially effected, however, no equivalent right of redemption exists. The law declares
that a judicial foreclosure sale, ‘when confirmed by an order of the court, . . shall operate to divest the rights 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.’ Such rights exceptionally ‘allowed by law’ (i.e., even after the confirmation by an order of the
court) are those granted by the charter of the Philippine National Bank (Act Nos. 2747 and 2938), and the General
Banking Act (R.A. 337). These laws confer on the mortgagor, his successors in interest or any judgment creditor of
the mortgagor, the right to redeem the property sold on foreclosure–after confirmation by the court of the
foreclosure sale–which right may be exercised within a period of one (1) year, counted from the date of registration
of the certificate of sale in the Registry of Property.

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 an order of the court, . . .
shall operate to divest the rights of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the purchaser.’ There then
exists only what is known as the equity of redemption. This is simply the right of the defendant mortgagor to
extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt within the 90-day period
after the judgment becomes final, in accordance with Rule 68, or even after the foreclosure sale but prior to its
confirmation. "This is the mortgagor’s equity (not right) of redemption which, as above stated, may be exercised
by him even beyond the 90-day period ‘from the date of service of the order,’ and even after the foreclosure sale
itself, provided it be before the order of confirmation of the sale. After such order of confirmation, no redemption
can be effected any longer."

22
 As a general rule, there is no right of redemption in a judicial foreclosure of mortgage. The only exemption is when
the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or a bank or a banking institution. Since the mortgagee in this case
is not one of those mentioned, no right of redemption exists in favor of petitioners. They merely have an equity of
redemption, which, to reiterate, is simply their right, as mortgagor, to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership
of the property by paying the secured debt prior to the confirmation of the foreclosure sale. However, instead of
exercising this equity of redemption, petitioners chose to delay the proceedings by filing several manifestations
with the trial court. Thus, they only have themselves to blame for the consequent loss of their property.

Arthur Sarte Flores v. Spouses Lindo, April 13, 2011

As a GENERAL RULE: a Mortgage-creditor has a single cause of action against a mortgage-debtor which is to
recover the debt. The creditor has the option of either filing a personal action for collection of sum of money or
instituting a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. An election of the first bars recourse to the second,
otherwise there would be multiplicity of suits in which the debtor would be tossed from one venue to another
depending on the location of the mortgaged properties and the residence of the parties. The two remedies are
alternative and each remedy is complete by itself. If the mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he
waives the action for the collection of the debt, and vice versa.

Rationale for GR: The Court has ruled that if a creditor is allowed to file his separate complaints simultaneously or
successively, one to recover his credit and another to foreclose his mortgage, he will, in effect, be authorized plural
redress for a single breach of contract at so much costs to the court and with so much vexation and
oppressiveness to the debtor.

But because of the circumstances of this case, the GR will not apply. Principle of Unjust Enrichment applies here.

Suico Rattan & Buri Interiors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, June 15, 2006
Where the mortgage creditor chooses the remedy of foreclosure and the proceeds of the foreclosure sale are
insufficient to cover the debt, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor. The law gives the
mortgagee the right to claim for the deficiency resulting from the price obtained in the sale of the property at public
auction and the outstanding obligation at the time of the foreclosure proceedings. This rule is based on the
principle earlier mentioned that the mortgage is only a security and not a satisfaction of the mortgagor's entire
obligation. Moreover, unlike in pledgeand chattel mortgage on a thing sold on installment, where the Civil Code
expressly forecloses the right of creditors to sue for any deficiency resulting from the sale of the property given as
a security for the obligation, there is nothing in Act. No. 3135, the law governing extrajudicial foreclosures, which
expressly or impliedly prohibits the recovery of such deficiency. If the legislature had intended to deny the creditor
the right to sue for any deficiency resulting from the foreclosure of a security given to guarantee an obligation, the
law would expressly so provide. Absent such a provision in Act. No. 3135, as amended, the creditor is not
precluded from taking action to recover any unpaid balance on the principal obligation simply because he chose to
extrajudicially foreclose the real estate mortgage. Hence, in the present case, the Court's dismissal of the
complaint should be without prejudice to the filing of another action for the recovery of the balance left in
petitioners' obligation after the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged properties

Monzon v. Spouses Nieva, September 17, 2008

Respondents claimed that they are entitled to the residue of the amount paid in the foreclosure sale pursuant to
Sec. 4. However, the SC held that this is not a case of judicial foreclosure. It is an extrajudicial one.

Rule 68 governs judicial foreclosure of mortgages. Extrajudicial foreclosure is governed by Act. No. 3135, as
amended by Act No. 4118. A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 provides for the procedure in the conduct of an extrajudicial
foreclosure.

Unlike Rule 68, Act No. 3135 does not grant to junior encumbrances the right to receive the balance of the
purchase price. The only right given to second mortgages is the right to redeem the foreclosed property.

Even assuming that Rule 68 applied to extrajudicial foreclosure, such right can only be given to second
mortgagees who are made parties to the (judicial) foreclosure. A second mortgagee is not an indispensable party,
he is just a necessary party because a valid decree may be made, as between the mortgagor and the first
mortgagee without regard to the second mortgage. The consequence of failure to make the second mortgagee a
party to the proceeding is that the lien of the second mortgagee on the equity of redemption is not affected by the
decree of foreclosure.

23
 Robles v. Yapcinco, et.al., October 22, 2014
Petitioner is the successor in interest of the purchaser in the public auction, while respondents are the heirs of the
mortgagor-debtor who never manifested interest in redeeming property. After auction sale, no confirmation of sale
was made by the court for over 40 years. Argument here was w/n respondents can exercise equity of redemption
bec. no confirmation of sale was made. SC: relaxed rules of procedure and made decision based on equity
considering that 40 years had lapsed.

The registration of the sale of property is required only in extra-judicial foreclosure because the date of registration
is the reckoning point for the exercise of the right of redemption. It is not necessary to register the sale in the case
of judicial foreclosure because only equity of redemption is granted to the mortgagor, except in mortgages with
banking institutions.

Equity of redemption is the right of the defendant-mortgager to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of
the property by paying the secured debt within the 90-day period after the judgment becomes final, or even after
the foreclosure sale but prior to the confirmation of the sale.

Marilag v. Martinez, July 22, 2015

Petitioner filed an action for foreclosure; granted but found interest rates usurious so lessened the amount of
interest and pegged entire debt including interest at 229k. Respondent, unaware of decision of court, executed a
promissory note for 600k; paid 400k; upon becoming aware of courts decision refused to pay remaining amount on
promissory note. Petitioner filed an action for the collection of sum of money. SC held: There being no showing
that the 1st decision attained finality the application of res judicata is inapplicable. However, litis pendencia is
applicable there being the same cause of action and similar parties.

Note: Requisites litis pendencia 1) Identity of parties; 2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for; 3) any
judgment in a pending case would amount to res judicata in the other. Rationale: no party is allowed to vex
another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action.

In a loan contract secured by a REM, the rule is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against
the debtor-mortgagor, which is to recover the debt, through the filing of a personal action for the collection of a
sum of money OR institute a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative,
not cumulative or successive. Each remedy is complete in itself. A remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the
suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage.
Note: proscription against splitting a single cause of action.

Thus, if a creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the REM, he waives the action for the collection of sum of money,
EXCEPT for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgager
after deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the mortgaged properties. A deficiency judgment,
however, shall only issue after it is established that the property sold at auction was for an amount less than the
outstanding obligation.

Partition (Rule 69)

Jurisprudence
Russel v. Vestil, March 17, 1999
An action for partition is one incapable of pencuinary estimation.

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this
Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money
claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such
actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by courts the Regional Trial Courts.

24
 Quimpo v. Vda. De Beltran, February 13, 2008
Oral Partition. Partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the presumption. Thus,
after a long possession in severalty, a deed of partition may be presumed. It has been held that recitals in deeds,
possession and occupation of land, improvements made thereon for a long series of years, and acquiescence for
60 years, furnish sufficient evidence that there was an actual partition of land either by deed or by proceedings in
the probate court, which had been lost and were not recorded. On general principle, independent and in spite of
the statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed.

Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at law, equity will in
proper cases, where the parol partition has actually been consummated by the taking of possession in severalty
and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such
parol partition and the rights of the parties thereunder. Thus, it has been held or stated in a number of cases
involving an oral partition under which the parties went into possession, exercised acts of ownership, or otherwise
partly performed the partition agreement, that equity will confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title in
accordance with the possession in severalty.

In numerous cases it has been held or stated that parol partitions may be sustained on the ground of estoppel of
the parties to assert the rights of a tenant in common as to parts of land divided by parol partition as to which
possession in severalty was taken and acts of individual ownership were exercised. And a court of equity will
recognize the agreement and decree it to be valid and effectual for the purpose of concluding the right of the
parties as between each other to hold their respective parts in severalty.

A parol partition may also be sustained on the ground that the parties thereto have acquiesced in and ratified the
partition by taking possession in severalty, exercising acts of ownership with respect thereto, or otherwise
recognizing the existence of the partition.

A number of cases have specifically applied the doctrine of part performance, or have stated that a part
performance is necessary, to take a parol partition out of the operation of the statute of frauds. It has been held
that where there was a partition in fact between tenants in common, and a part performance, a court of equity
would have regard to and enforce such partition agreed to by the parties

Quintos v. Nicolas, June 16, 2014 – res judicata in partition case

Res Judicata exists when there has been a final judgment on the merits of the case and according to the Rules, a
dismissal of an action for partition on the ground of failure to prosecute amounts to a dismissal on the merits.
However, the doctrine of res judicata cannot prevail in a second action for partition when there was no actual
determination of the shares of the parties. The substantive right of a co-owner to demand partition at any time cannot
be thwarted by a procedural rule. But this is not to say that in actions for partition no res judicata can be had. Res
judicata may apply IF there was an actual determination of shares in the prior case.

Balo, et.al. v. Court of Appeals, September 30, 2005

we have held in numerous cases, and the doctrine must be considered well settled, that a natural child having a
right to compel acknowledgment, but who has not been in fact legally acknowledged, may maintain partition
(proceedings for the division of the inheritance against his coheirs; and the same person may intervene in
proceedings for the distribution of the estate of his deceased natural father, or mother. In neither of these
situations has it been thought necessary for the plaintiff to show a prior decree compelling acknowledgment. The
obvious reason is that in partition suits and distribution proceedings the other persons who might take by
inheritance are before the court; and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedings.

In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject properties;
and second, the conveyance of his lawful shares. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, an action for partition is
at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determine portion of
the properties involved. If the defendant asserts exclusive title over the property, the action for partition should not
be dismissed. Rather, the court should resolve the case and if the plaintiff is unable to sustain his claimed status
as a co-owner, the court should dismiss the action, not because the wrong remedy was availed of, but because no
basis exists for requiring the defendant to submit to partition. If, on the other hand, the court after trial should find
the existence of co-ownership among the parties, the court may and should order the partition of the properties in
the same action

25
 Dadizon v. Bernadas, June 5, 2009
There are two stages in every action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. The first stage is the
determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally
proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. The second
stage commences when it appears that "the parties are unable to agree upon the partition" directed by the court. In
that event, partition shall be done for the parties by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3)
commissioners.

There are, thus, two ways in which a partition can take place under Rule 69: by agreement under Section 2, and
through commissioners when such agreement cannot be reached under Sections 3 to 6.

Even if petitioners did manifest in open court to the RTC that they have already agreed with the respondents on
the manner of partition of the subject properties, what is material is that only the respondents filed the Project of
Partition and that the same did not bear the signatures of petitioners because only a document signed by all of the
parties can signify that they agree on a partition. Hence, the RTC had no authority to approve the Project of
Partition. RTC should have ordered the appointment of commissioners.

In partition proceedings, reference to commissioners is required as a procedural step in the action and is not
discretionary on the part of the court. We have held in a number of cases that if the parties are unable to agree on
a partition, the trial court should order the appointment of commissioners.

In De Mesa v. Court of Appeals, we held that the trial court cannot compel petitioner to sign the extrajudicial deed
of partition prepared solely by private respondents for the reason that if the parties are unable to agree on a
partition, the trial court must order the appointment of commissioners.

In Patricio v. Dario III, we invalidated the order of the trial court ordering the sale by public auction of the property
subject of partition on the ground that since the parties were unable to agree on a partition, the trial court should
have ordered a partition by commissioners pursuant to Section 3, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. It is only after it is
made to appear to the latter that the real estate, or a portion thereof, cannot be divided without great prejudice to
the interest of the parties, and one of the parties interested asks that the property be sold instead of being
assigned to one of the parties, may the court order the commissioners to sell the real estate at public sale.

26
 Contempt (Rule 71)

Definition Contempt constitutes a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority,
justice, and dignity. It comprehends a despising of the authority, justice or dignitiy of the
court.

Contempt of Court is defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. A

disregard of or disobedience to the rules or orders of a judicial body or an interruption of its
proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language.

Nature of Proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in nature criminal, but may be resorted to in civil as
Contempt well as in criminal actions, and independently of any action.
Proceedings
Purpose of To preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the orderly administration of justice.
Contempt
Contempt against Sec. 12.
quasi-judicial
bodies

Criminal Contempt Civil Contempt

Consists in conduct that is directed against the authority Consists in the failure to do something ordered to be
and dignity of a court or of a judge acting judicially, as done by a court or judge in a civil case for the benefit of
in unlawfully assailing or discrediting the authority and the opposing party therein.
dignity of a court or of a judge, or in doing a duly
forbidden act.
Purpose: primarily punishment (vindication of the Purpose: primarily compensatory or remedial (protect,
dignity and authority of the court, and to protect the preserve, and enforce the rights of private parties and
interests of the general public.) compel obedience to orders, judgments, and decrees)
Note: the character of contempt is determined by the nature of the contempt involved (regardless of the cause in
which the contempt arose) AND by the relief sought or dominant purpose.

Direct Contempt
What constitutes Sec. 1. Direct Contempt punished summarily. – A person guilty of
direct contempt 1. Misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings before the same; including
2. Disrespect toward the court, or
3. Offensive personalities toward others, or
4. Refusal to be sworn, or
5. Refusal to answer as a witness, or
6. Refusal to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so
May be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court and punished.

How proceedings - Punishment for direct contempt is generally summary and immediate, and no
is initiated process or evidence necessary because the act is in facie curiae.
- However, an order of direct contempt is NOT immediately executory or enforceable.
The contemnor must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself
of the contempt.

Note: Judge’s personal knowledge is important. It determines whether the contempt should
be punished summarily. If the judge is without personal knowledge then observance of all the
elements of due process of law are required – notice, written charges, and an opportunity to
deny and to defend such charges before guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed (Lorenzo
Shipping Corp v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, GR 155849, 2011)

Note: A contemptuous act committed out of the presence of the court, IF admitted by the
contemnor in open court, may be punished summarily as a direct contempt, although
advisable to proceed by requiring the person charged to appear and show cause why he
should not be punished. This is still within the rule that when a judge has no personal
knowledge, due process kicks in, although still somewhat summarily judged in this instance.

27
 Remedy
- A person adjudged in direct contempt of court may NOT appeal therefrom, but may
avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. Execution of the judgment
shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided that such person
files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he
will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him
(Sec. 2).

Imposable RTC à fine not exceeding P2k, or imprisonment not exceeding 10 days, or both
Penalties MTC à fine not exceeding P200, or imprisonment not exceeding 1 day, or both (Sec. 1)

Indirect Contempt
What constitutes Indirect contempt proceedings partake of the nature of criminal prosecution. This form of
indirect contempt contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge
acting judicially; it is an obstructing of the administration of justice which tends to bring the
court into disrepute or disrespect.

Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. – After a charge in
writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon
within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a
person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
(MA-RAIDS)
a. Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official
duties or in his official transactions
b. Assuming to be an Attorney or an office of a court, and acting as such
without authority
c. The Rescue or attempted rescue of a person or property in the custody of
an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.
d. Any Abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process or
proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under Sec. 1
e. Any Improper conduct tending directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct,
or degrade the administration of justice.
f. Disobedience of or resistance to a to a lawful writ, order, or judgment of a
court, including
i. the act of a person who after being dispossessed or ejected
from real property by judgment or process of any competent
jurisdiction, enters or attempts, or induces another to enter into
or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of
ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs possession
given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereof.
g. Failure to obey a Subpoena duly served.

How proceeding is Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. – Proceedings for indirect contempt may be:
initiated 1. Initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by
an order OR any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why
he should not be punished for contempt
2. In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified
petition with:
a. Supporting particulars
b. And certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and
c. Upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings
for civil actions in the court concerned.
d. 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,

28
 i. unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the
contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and
decision.

Procedure in indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu proprio by the court:

1. There must be an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be
cited for contempt
2. The respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge against
him.
3. There must be a hearing and the court must investigate the charge and consider
the respondent’s answer.
4. If found guilty, respondent will be punished accordingly.

Procedure in indirect contempt proceedings initiated by a verified petition:

1. Follow sec. 4. Verified petition which comply with requirements for filing of
initiatory pleadings.
2. The respondent given the opportunity to respond
3. There must be a hearing

Where should the Sec. 5. Where charge to be filed. –

charge be filed 1. Where the charge for indirect contempt has been committed against the RTC or a
court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it, the charge
may be filed with such court.
2. Where such contempt has been committed against a lower court, the charge may
be filed with the RTC of the place in which the lower court is sitting.
3. The proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court subject to appeal to
the RTC of the place in the same manner as provided in Sec. 11

Imposable Penalties RTC à fine not exceeding 30k, or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both
MTC à fine not exceeding 5k, or imprisonment not exceeding 1 month, or both

Jurisprudence
Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107671, February 26, 1997
The real character of the proceedings in contempt cases is to be determined by the relief sought or by the
dominant purpose. The proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment, and
civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial.

Criminal Contempt v. Civil Contempt

In criminal contempt proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the principles and rules applicable in
criminal cases, insofar as such procedure is consistent with the summary nature of contempt proceedings. Strict
rules that govern criminal prosecutions apply to a prosecution for criminal contempt, the accused is to be afforded
many of the protections provided in regular criminal cases, and proceedings under statutes governing them are to
be strictly construed. However, criminal proceedings are not required to take any particular form so long as the
substantial rights of the accused are preserved.
Civil contempt proceedings, on the other hand, are generally held to be remedial and civil in nature; that is, for the
enforcement of some duty, and essentially a remedy resorted to, to preserve and enforce the rights of a private
party to an action and to compel obedience to a judgment 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.

Indirect Contempt Procedural Requisites

Section 3, Rule 71, of the Rules of Court specifically outlines the procedural requisites before the accused may be
punished for indirect contempt: (1) the filing of a written charge and (2) an opportunity given to the accused to be
heard by himself or counsel. All that the law requires is that there be a charge in writing duly filed in court and an
opportunity given to the person charged to be heard by himself or counsel. What is most essential is that the
alleged contemnor be granted an opportunity to meet the charges against him and to be heard in his defenses.d

29
 Cruz v. Judge Gingoyon, September 28, 2011
A pleading containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements submitted to court or judge wherein
proceedings are pending is considered direct contempt. It is equivalent to misbehavior in the presence or so near
the court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.

Soriano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128938, June 4, 2004

Requisites prior to conviction of indirect contempt: 1) Charge in writing to be filed; 2) an opportunity given to the
respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court; and 3) to be heard by himself or
counsel. In this case, the third requisite is lacking. No hearing was conducted. Hearing is mandatory.

Since an indirect contempt charge partakes the nature of a criminal charge, conviction cannot be had merely on
the basis of written pleadings. The contemnor is assured of his or her day in court. A hearing affords the
contemnor the opportunity to adduce before the court documentary or testimonial evidence in his behalf. The
hearing will also allow the court a more thorough evaluation of the defense of the contemnor.

Rodriguez & Tulali v. Hon. Blancaflor, March 14, 2011

The power to punish a person in contempt of court is inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial proceedings
and to uphold the orderly administration of justice. It is a power that should be used sparingly and with utmost
restraint, and with the end view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, and
not for retaliation or vindictiveness.

Difference between contempt proceeding and disciplinary proceeding:

Contempt proceeding is designed to vindicate the authority of the court. The purpose of the exercise of the power
to cite in contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court.

The object of a disciplinary proceedings is to deal with the fitness of the court’s officer to continue in that office, to
preserve and protect the court and the public from the official ministrations of persons unfit or unworthy to hold
such office. The purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority by the SC is to assure respect for orders of such
court by attorneys who are responsible for the orderly administration of justice.

Such power, being drastic and extraordinary in nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest
of justice.

Baculi v. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176, April 20, 2009

Re: Direct Contempt: Same doctrine as Cruz v Judge Gingoyon.
Re: Indirect Contempt: The indirect contempt here arose out of the principal action, hence it should have been filed
a separate action or there should have been an order to consolidate in order for Judge Belen to have acted on it.
Since no separate charge was filed, Judge belen without authority to act on it.

Oclarit v. Hon. Paderanga, G.R. No. 139519, January 24, 2001

Direct Contempt case for filing motion for approval of compromise agreement reached before a barangay captain.

In the order of direct contempt a judge must state expressly the facts constituting the contemptuous behavior of
petitioner and declare him in direct contempt of court.

An order of direct contempt is not immediately executory or enforceable. The contemnor must be afforded a
reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself of the contempt. Such person may not appeal from the order but
may avail himself of certiorari or prohibition. In such case, the execution of judgment shall be suspended pending
resolution of such petition provided the contemnor file a bond fixed by the court which rendered judgment and
conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him.

Arriola v. Arriola, January 28, 2008

In cases where the indirect contempt charge is not initiated by the courts, the filing of a verified petition which
fulfills the requirements on initiatory pleadings is a prerequisite. Mere motion without complying with the
requirements for initiatory pleadings is no longer allowed.

Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. v. Reynoso, Jr., March 29, 1995

W/N there can be contempt of court in case of post-litigation statements or publications.
- As a general rule, No

30
 - However, the termination of the case is not a guaranty to immunity from a contempt charge for
publications or utterances which are defamatory or libelous, depending on the purpose and effects
thereof. One may still be cited for contempt of court even after the case has ended where such punitive
action is necessary to protect the court and its dignity and to vindicate it from acts or conduct intended or
calculated to degrade, ridicule or bring the court into disfavor and thereby erode or destroy public
confidence in that court.
Which court has jurisdiction over a contempt committed against the trial court while the case is pending an appeal
- The rule is that no other court than the one contemned will punish a given contempt. Rationale: contempt
proceedings are sui generis and are triable only by that court against whose authority the contempt are
charged; the power to punish for contempt exists for the purpose of enabling the court to compel due
decorum and respect in its presence and due obedience to its judgments.
- However, there are certain exception:
1) Indirect contempt committed against inferior court may also be tried by the proper RTC regardless of
the imposable penalty;
2) Indirect contempt against the SC may be caused to be investigated by a prosecuting officer and the
charge may be filed in and tried by the RTC, or the case may be referred to it for hearing and
recommendation where the charge involves questions of fact;
3) In People v Alarcon, “in the interrelation of different courts forming our integrated judicial system, one
court is not an agent or representative of another and may not, punish contempts in vindication of the
authority and decorum which are not its own. The appeal transfers the proceedings to the Appellate court,
and this last court becomes charged with authority to deal with contempts after the perfection of the
appeal.”
4) A court may punish contempts committed against a court or judge constituting one of its parts or
agencies, as in the case of a court composed of several coordinate branches or divisions.
4) A new court wholly replacing a prior court has jurisdiction to punish for violations of orders entered by
its predecessor
5) The same act is a contempt against two or more courts.

In short:
The rule, as now accepted and deemed applicable to the present incident, is that where the entire case has
already been appealed, jurisdiction to punish for contempt rests with the appellate court where the appeal
completely transfers the proceedings thereto or where there is a tendency to affect the status quo or otherwise
interfere with the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Accordingly, this Court having acquired jurisdiction over the
complaint for indirect contempt against herein respondents, it has taken judicial cognizance thereof and has
accordingly resolved the same.

31