Special civil actions g.

Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule

68)
[rules 62-71, rules of court] h. Partition (Rule 69)
i. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule
BASIC CONCEPTS 70)
Q: What is a Civil Action? j. Contempt (Rule 71)
A: It is an action by which a party sues another for
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the OTHER SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
prevention or redress of a wrong (Section 3 (a), Rule The following are SCAs not found in the Rules of
1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Court:
1. Writ of Kalikasan (Section 1, Rule 7, Part
Kinds of Civil Actions III, A.M. No. 09-6-08, Rules of Procedure
1. Ordinary Civil Action; or for Environmental Cases);
2. Special Civil Action 2. Writ of Continuing Mandamus (Section 1,
Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-08)
Q: What is a Special Civil Action?
A: It is a kind of action which is governed by the HOW MAY SCAS BE COMMENCED?
rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to specific It depends upon the type of SCA:
rules prescribed under Rules 62 to 71 and such as a. By way of a complaint:
may be declared by the Supreme Court. 1. Interpleader (Rule 62)
2. Expropriation (Rule 67)
Q: What is the nature of a Special Civil Action? 3. Foreclosure of Mortgage (Rule 67)
A: It is an action which has reference to special 4. Partition (Rule 69)
matters requiring special procedure. 5. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
(Rule 70)
Q: What are the provisions of Ordinary Civil 6. Quieting of Title or Removal of Clouds
Actions which are applicable in Special Civil (Rule 63)
Actions? b. By way of a Petition:
A: The following: 1. Declaratory Relief and Other Similar
1. As a general rule, the rules on venue shall Remedies (Rule 63)
be applicable in SCAs except as otherwise provided 2. Certiorari from the judgment or final
by the particular provisions of the said SCAs; orders of the COMELEC or COA (Rule 64)
2. The formal requirements of a pleading 3. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)
provided under Sections 1 to 5 of Rule 7 is applicable 4. Indirect Contempt (Rule 71)
in SCAs; 5. Writ of Kalikasan (Section 1, Rule 7, Part
3. The rule on motion to dismiss is III, A.M. No. 09-6-08, Rules of Procedure for
applicable in SCAs (National Power Corporation vs. Environmental Cases)
Valera, G.R. No. L-15295, November 30, 1961); 6. Writ of Continuing Mandamus (Section 1,
4. Rule on Pre-trial Conference Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-08)
Note: Under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court,
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER THE an ordinary civil action cannot be joined together
RULES OF COURT with a special civil action.
The following are the SCAs under the Rules of
Court:
a. Interpleader (Rule 62)
b. Declaratory relief, quieting of title,
reformation of instrument and consolidation
of ownership (Rule 63)
c. Review of the judgment, final order and
resolution of the COMELEC and COA
(Rule 64) DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS
d. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Rule IN CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION,
65) MANDAMUS, QUO WARRANTO,
e. Quo warranto (Rule 66) HABEAS CORPUS & INJUNCTION CASES
f. Expropriation (Rule 67)
Note: The SC, CA and RTC have concurrent Interpleader – is a remedy whereby a person who
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, has property whether personal or real, in his
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and possession, or an obligation to render wholly or
injunction cases. partially, without claiming any right in both, or
claims an interest which in whole or in part is not
Heirs of Bertulfo Hinog vs. Hon. Melicor disputed by the conflicting claimants, comes to court
SC: This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, and asks that the persons who claim the property or
to be taken as according the parties seeking any of the who consider themselves entitled to demand
writs as absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate
the court to which application therefor will be among themselves, in order to determine finally who
directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. is entitled to the property or payment of the
That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of obligation.
appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of
the appropriate forum for petitions for the Alvarez vs. Commonwealth of the Phils. 65 Phil 302
extraordinary writs. SC: The remedy is afforded not to protect a person
against double liability but to protect him against a
ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION OVER double vexation in respect of one liability.
THE PERSON OF THE RESPONDENT IN
SCA INTERPLEADER VS. INTERVENTION
Q: How can the court acquire jurisdiction over the INTERPLEADER INTERVENTION
person of the respondent/defendant in SCAs? Is an original action Is an ancillary action
A: By the service on him (respondent/defendant) of Presupposes that the Is proper in any of the
its order or resolution indicating its initial action on plaintiff has no interest four (4) situations
the petition or by his voluntary submission to such in the subject matter of mentioned in Rule 19
jurisdiction. the action or has an wherein a third person
interest therein which, has a legal interest over
Q: What are the actions of the court on the in whole or in part, is the subject matter of the
petition? not disputed by the action, or in the success
A: The following: other parties to the of either or both of the
1. Dismiss the petition outright with specific action defendant, or will be
reasons for such dismissal; or greatly affected in the
2. Require the respondent to file a comment disposition of the
on the same within ten (10) days from notice. property subject of the
action
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH CAN The defendants are In a complaint-in-
BE ORIGINALLY FILED WITH THE SC being sued precisely to intervention, the
The following may be filed originally with the implead them defendants are already
Supreme Court: original parties to the
1. Petition for Certiorari pending suit.
2. Petition for Prohibition Can be commenced by Can be availed of by
3. Petition for Mandamus filing a complaint filing a motion with
4. Petition for Quo Warranto before the proper court. leave of court to file
intervention together
with the attached
pleading in intervention
In case of adverse In case of denial of
decision in interpleader intervention, the
the remedy of the aggrieved party may
aggrieved party is to file an appeal or file the
file an appeal claim in a separate
action.
INTERPLEADER
The period to file The period to file
[RULE 62] answer is within fifteen answer to the
(15) days from service complaint-in-
BASIC CONCEPT of summons. intervention is within
 fifteen (15) days from
notice of the order
admitting the
intervention.
WHEN IS INTERPLEADER PROPER?
[SECTION 1, RULE 62]
A person may bring an action for interpleader when:
1. There are two or more conflicting claimants;
2. Plaintiff files the action to compel the
conflicting claimants to interplead and
litigate their several claims among
themselves;
3. That the conflicting claims is upon the same
subject matter which are or may be made
against a person who claims no interest
whatever in the subject matter; and
4. An interest which in whole or in part is not
disputed by the claimants.
“CONFLICTING CLAIM”
Lui Enterprises, Inc. vs. Zuellig Pharma
Corporation and PBComG.R. No. 193494 [March 7,
2014]
SC: 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.
WHEN TO FILE AN ACTION FOR
INTERPLEADER?
Wack-Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. vs. Lee
Won, et al G.R. No. L-23851 [March 26, 1976]
SC: An action for interpleader must be filed within a
reasonable time after the dispute has arisen, otherwise
it may be barred by laches. Where a party was aware
of the dispute 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.
Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, Inc.
548 SCRA 273
F: Petitioners alleged that they did not pay the rentals
because they did not know to whom payment should
be made.
SC: The failure to pay is unjustified because if such
were the case, they were not without any remedy.
They should have availed of the provisions of the
Civil Code on the consignation of payment and the
Rules of Court on interpleader. 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).
WHEN TO FILE AN ACTION FOR
INTERPLEADER?
Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, Inc.
548 SCRA 273
SC: An interpleader allows a person to pass the legal
problem over to the court which will have to
eventually adjudicate upon the adverse claims,
enabling the plaintiff to protect himself from possible
lawsuits initiated by any of the claimants.
Ocampo vs. Tirona
455 SCRA 62
SC: 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
complaint in interpleader and not a cross-complaint.
DECISIONAL RULES
McMicking vs. Martinez
15 Phils. 204
SC: A sheriff, in possession of the proceeds of the
sale of property under execution, may file an action
for interpleader against several persons claiming
adversely the proceeds of such sale.
De Jesus vs. Sociedad Arrendataria de Galleras de
Pasay
23 Phils. 76
SC: A lessee who is in doubt as to the person to
whom he should pay the rent, because the property
leased is claimed by several persons, may file an
action for interpleader against such persons.
Beltran vs. People’s Homesite and Housing
Corporation
L-25138 [August 28, 1969]
SC: Interpleader is improper in an action where
defendants have conflicting claims against the
plaintiff.
Vda. de Camilo vs. Aranio
G.R. No. L-15653 [September 29, 1961]
SC: Where there are no conflicting claims among the
defendants, their respective claims being separate and
distinct from each other, the complaint for
interpleader may be dismissed for lack of cause of
action.
JURISDICTION OVER INTERPLEADER
CASES
The courts which have jurisdiction over an action for
interpleader shall be as follows:
A. Personal Property
1. If the value of the personal property
exceeds P300,000.00 outside of Metro Manila or
P400,000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies
with the RTC;
2. If the value of the personal property does
not exceed P300,000.00 outside of Metro Manila or
P400,000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies
with the MTC.
B. Real Property
1. If the assessed value of the real property
exceeds P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila or
P50,000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies
with the RTC;
2. If the assessed value of the real property
does not exceed P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila
or P50,000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies
with the MTC.
VENUE IN AN ACTION FOR
INTERPLEADER
The rules on venue in an ordinary civil action shall be
applied in an action for interpleader which shall be as
follows:
A. Real Property
- Venue lies where the property is located or
any portion thereof is situated.
B. Personal Property
- Venue lies with the residence of the
plaintiff or the residence of the defendant at the
election of the plaintiff.
ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER UPON FILING
OF COMPLAINT
[SECTION 2, RULE 62]
Upon filing of the complaint, the court shall:
1. Issue an order requiring the conflicting
claimants to interplead with one another;
2. If interests of justice so require, the court
may direct in such order that the subject
matter be paid or delivered to the court.
ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS
[SECTION 3, RULE 62]
Q: To whom shall summons be served?
A: Summons shall be served upon the conflicting
claimants, together with a copy of the complaint and
order.
FILING OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[SECTION 4, RULE 62]
Within the time for filing an answer, each claimant
may file a motion to dismiss on the following
grounds:
1. Impropriety of the interpleader action; or
2. On other appropriate grounds specified in
Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.*
Q: What is the remedy in case of denial of the
motion?
A: If the motion is denied, the movant may file his
answer within the remaining period, but which shall
not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned
from notice of denial.
FILING OF ANSWER AND OTHER
PLEADINGS/DECLARATION OF
DEFAULT
[SECTION 5, RULE 62]
Sec. 5. Answer and other pleadings. – Each claimant
shall file his answer setting forth his claim within
fifteen (15) days from service of the 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. 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.
The parties in an interpleader action may file
counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints
and responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by
these Rules.
DETERMINATION AND ADJUDICATION
OF RIGHTS AND CLAIMS
[SECTION 6, RULE 62]
Q: What are the courses of action of the court
after filing of the pleadings and pre-trial have
been conducted?
A: The court shall:
1. Proceed to determine their respective
rights; and
2. Adjudicate the several claims of the
claimants
PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES & LIEN
[SECTION 7, RULE 62]
Q: Who pays the docket fees in an action for
interpleader?
A: The person who files the complaint pays the
docket and other lawful fees. However, these fees, 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.
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND OTHER
SIMILAR REMEDIES [RULE 63]
BASIC CONCEPT
Q: What remedies are available under Rule 63?
A: The following:
1. Declaratory relief;
2. Reformation of instrument;
3. Quieting of title or removal of clouds; and
4. Consolidation of ownership
Q: What is Declaratory Relief?
A: It is an action by any person interested in a deed,
will, contract or other written instrument, executive
order or resolution, to determine any question of
construction or validity arising from the instrument,
executive order or regulation, or statute; and for a
declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The
only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the
question of construction or validity of provisions in
an instrument or statute.
PURPOSE
Meralco vs. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc.
374 SCRA 276
SC: An action for declaratory relief is brought to
secure an authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a contract or statute
for their guidance in the enforcement or compliance
with the same and not to settle issues arising from its
alleged breach.
• The purpose is to seek for a judicial interpretation of
an instrument or for a judicial declaration of a
person’s rights under a statute and not to ask for an
affirmative relief beyond the purpose of the petition.
It is not brought to settle issues arising from a breach
because after the breach of contract or statute, the
petition can no longer be brought.
WHO MAY FILE PETITION
[SECTION 1, RULE 63]
Sec. 1. Who may file petition. – Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or
violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate
Regional Trial Court to determine any question of
construction or validity arising, and for a declaration
of his rights or duties, thereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to
quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article
1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this
Rule.
SUBJECT MATTER IN A PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF
The subject matter in a petition for declaratory relief
is any of the following:
1. Deed
2. Will
3. Contract or other written instrument
4. Statute
5. Executive order or regulation
6. Ordinance; or
7. Any other governmental regulation
Reyes vs. Ortiz
628 SCRA 1 [August 14, 2010]
SC: The subject matters to be tested in a petition for
declaratory relief are exclusive. Any other matter not
mentioned therein is deemed excluded. This is under
the principle of expressio unius est exclusion alterius.
JURISDICTION
City of Lapu-Lapu vs. Philippine Economic Zone
Authority
G.R. No. 184203 [November 26, 2014]
SC: The court with jurisdiction over petitions for
declaratory relief is the Regional Trial Court, the
subject matter of litigation in an action for
declaratory relief being incapable of pecuniary
estimation under Section 19 of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980.
REQUISITES FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF
A petition for declaratory relief must satisfy six (6)
requisites:
1. The subject matter of the controversy must
be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance;
2. The terms of the said statute or document
and the validity thereof are doubtful and
require judicial construction;
3. There must have been no breach of the
statute or document in question;
4. There must be an actual justiciable
controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one
between persons whose interests are
adverse;
5. The issue must be ripe for judicial
determination; and
6. Adequate relief is not available through
other means or other forms of action or
proceeding (Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing
Industries, Inc., 542 SCRA 470)
WHEN PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF IS NOT PROPER
Edades vs. Edades
99 Phil. 675
SC: An action for declaratory relief to ask the court
to declare his filiation and consequently his
hereditary rights is improper. The action is not based
on a deed, a will, statute or any of those enumerated
as subject matter of the petition.
Reyes vs. Dizon
628 SCRA 1
SC: A petition for declaratory relief is not proper for
the purpose of seeking enlightenment as to the true
import of a judgment. The remedy is to move for a
clarificatory judgment.
WHEN PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF IS NOT PROPER
• A petition for declaratory relief is not proper to
assail a judgment. Before judgment becomes final
and executory, the aggrieved party may file a motion
for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or perfect
an appeal. After the judgment become final and
executory, he may file a petition for relief from
judgment or an action to annul the judgment.
Besides, Section 1 of Rule 63 does not mention a
judgment as a proper subject of a petition for
declaratory relief.
The Honorable Monetary Board, et al vs. Philippine
Veterans Bank
G.R. No. 189751 [January 21, 2015]
SC: The decision of the BSP Monetary Board cannot
be a proper subject for a petition for declaratory relief
since it was issued by the BSP Monetary Board in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial powers or functions.
• Even if the subject is one enumerated under the
Rules, where the contract or statute is clear in its
terms and there is no doubt as to its meaning and
validity, a petition for declaratory relief is improper.
The petition presupposes that the terms of a
document or of a statute are of doubtful validity and,
thus, require judicial interpretation.
WHEN PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF PROPER
Secretary of Finance Cesar B. Purisima, et al vs.
Carmelo F. Lazatin, et al
G.R. No. 210588 [November 29, 2016]
SC: Members of the Congress possess the legal
standing to question acts that amount to a usurpation
of the legislative power of Congress. Legislative
power is exclusively vested in the Legislature. When
the implementing rules and regulations issued by the
Executive contradict or add to what Congress has
provided by legislation, the issuance of these rules
amounts to an undue exercise of legislative power
and an encroachment of Congress’ prerogatives.
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
TREATED AS PETITION FOR
PROHIBITION/MANDAMUS
Macasiano vs. NHA
G.R. No. 107921 [July 1, 1993]
SC: Petition for declaratory relief may be treated as a
petition for prohibition if the case has far-reaching
implications and raises questions that need to be
resolved for the public good.
Wilson P. Gamboa vs. Finance Secretary Teves
G.R. No. 176579 [June 28, 2011]
SC: Petition for declaratory relief may be treated as a
petition for mandamus considering that grave
injustice would result in the interpretation of a
banking law.
Granting affirmative relief
• In a petition for declaratory relief, the petitioner
seeks for a declaration of his rights under an
instrument or a statute. As a rule, therefore,
affirmative reliefs as in ordinary civil actions are
NOT granted in declaratory petitions. There were
some instances, however, when affirmative relief
were granted.
No executory process as in ordinary civil actions
• As a general principle, the judgment in a declaratory
relief is said to stand by itself and NO executory
process follows as of course. It is unlike the
judgment in an ordinary civil action which is coercive
in character and enforceable by execution.
Jurisprudence, however, does not absolutely close its
doors to an executory process in a petition for
declaratory relief.
Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. vs.
Bonifacio
651 SCRA 327
SC: The judgment in a petition for declaratory relief
can be carried into effect without requiring the parties
to pay damages or perform any act as when the
petitioner’s complaint is captioned as quieting of title
and damages, but all that the petitioner prayed for is
for the court to uphold the validity of its titles as
against the respondent.
WHO MAY FILE FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF
[SECTION 2, RULE 63]
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 in these Rules, prejudice the
rights of persons not parties to the action.
NOTICE
[SECTIONS 3 AND 4, RULE 63]
Sec. 3. Notice on Solicitor General. – In any action
which involves the validity of a 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 is involved.
Sec. 4. Local Government Ordinances. – In any
action involving the validity of a local government
ordinance, the corresponding prosecutor or attorney
of the local governmental 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 entitled to
be heard.
DISCRETIONARY ACTION OF THE
COURT
[SECTION 5, RULE 63]
Sec. 5. Court Action Discretionary. – Except in
actions falling under second paragraph of Section 1
of this Rule, the court, motu proprio or upon motion,
may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and
construe instruments in any case where a decision
would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy
which gave rise to the action, or in any case where
the declaration or construction is not necessary and
proper under the circumstances.
CONVERSION INTO ORDINARY ACTION
[SECTION 6, RULE 63]
Sec. 6. Conversion into Ordinary Action. – If before
the final termination of the case, a 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.
Note: An action for declaratory relief presupposes
that there has been no actual breach of the
instruments involved or of the rights arising
thereunder.
Crisostomo Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay,
Aklan
G.R. No. 211356 [September 29, 2014]
SC: The closure and demolition of the hotel rendered
futile any possible guidelines that may be issued by
the trial court for carrying out the directives in the
challenged E.O. No. 10. Indubitably, the Court of
Appeals erred when it ruled that declaratory relief is
the proper remedy given such a situation.
SIMILAR REMEDIES UNDER RULE 63
The following are the other remedies found in Rule
63:
1. Reformation of Instrument
 2. Quieting of Title or Removal of Clouds
3. Consolidation of Ownership
REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT
Reformation of Instrument – is a remedy in equity
by means of which a written instrument is made or
construed so as to express or conform to the real
intention of the parties when some error or mistake
has been committed. (Zaragosa, Tuason & Co. vs.
Certified Clubs, 52718-R, November 24, 1975)
Purpose
The instrument is to be reformed because despite the
meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object
and cause of the contract, the instrument which is
supposed to embody the agreement of the parties
does not reflect their true agreement by reason of
mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident. The
action is brought so the true intention of the parties
may be expressed in the instrument (Art. 1359, Civil
Code)
INSTANCES WHERE REMEDY OF
REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT IS
PROPER
Arts. 1359 to 1365 of the New Civil Code provides
for the remedy of reformation of instrument in the
following instances:
1. Art. 1359
2. When a mutual mistake of the parties causes
the failure of the instrument to disclose their
real agreement, said instrument may be
reformed (Art. 1361)
3. If one party was mistaken and the other
acted fraudulently or inequitably in such a
way that the instrument does not show their
true intention, the former may ask for the
reformation of the instrument (Art. 1362)
4. When one party was mistaken and the other
knew or believed that the instrument did not
state their real agreement, but concealed that
fact from the former, the instrument may be
reformed (Art. 1363)
5. When through the ignorance, lack of skill,
negligence or bad faith on the part of the
person drafting the instrument or of the clerk
or typist, the instrument does not express the
true intention of the parties, the courts may
order that the instrument be reformed. (Art.
1364)
6. If two parties agree upon the mortgage or
pledge of real or personal property but the
instrument states that the property is sold
absolutely or with a right of repurchase,
reformation of the instrument is proper (Art.
1365)
INSTANCES WHEN REFORMATION OF
INSTRUMENT IS NOT PROPER
Reformation is not proper in the following:
1. If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or
accident has prevented a meeting of the
minds of the parties, the proper remedy is
not reformation of the instrument but
annulment of the contract. (Art. 1359)
2. There shall be no reformation in the
following:
a. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no
condition is imposed;
b. Wills;
c. When the real agreement is void (Art.
1366)
3. When one of the parties has brought an
action to enforce the instrument, he cannot
subsequently ask for its reformation (Art.
1367)
WHO MAY ASK FOR THE
REFORMATION OF THE INSTRUMENT
• Under Article 1368 of the Civil Code, 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.
QUIETING OF TITLE OR REMOVAL OF
CLOUDS
Quieting of Title – is a special civil action, remedial
in nature, which has for its purpose an adjudication
that a claim of title or an interest in property, adverse
to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the
complainant and those claiming under him may be
forever afterward free from any danger of the hostile
claim. This action is for the promotion of right and
justice. (Almeyda vs. Ilacas, 64757-R, January 21,
1982)
WHEN IS QUIETING OF TITLE PROPER?
[ARTS. 476 AND 478 OF THE NEW CIVIL
CODE]
Quieting of title is proper in the following:
1. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein, by reason of
any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance
or proceeding which is apparently valid or
effective but is in truth and in fact invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and
may be prejudicial to said title, an action
may be brought to remove such cloud or to
quiet title (Art. 476)
 2. There may also be an action to quiet title or
remove a cloud therefrom when the contract,
instrument or other obligation has been
extinguished or has terminated, or has been
barred by extinctive prescription (Art. 478)
3. An action may also be brought to prevent a
cloud from being cast upon title to real
property or any interest therein.
REQUISITES OF QUIETING OF TITLE
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2)
indispensable requisites must concur, namely:
1. The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or
an equitable title to 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
(Guillermo Salvador, et al vs. Patricia, Inc.,
G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016)
JURISDICTION
Note: Jurisdiction over a real action depends on the
assessed value of the property involved as alleged in
the complaint.
a. If the assessed value of the property exceeds
P 20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila or P
50,000.00, if within Metro Manila, the
proper Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction.
b. If the assessed value of the property does not
exceed P 20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila
or P50,000.00 if within Metro Manila, the
proper Municipal Trial Court has
jurisdiction.
CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP
• The action brought to consolidate ownership is not
for the purpose of consolidating the ownership of
property in the person of the vendee or buyer but for
the registration of the property. The lapse of the
redemption period without the seller a retro
exercising his right of redemption consolidates
ownership or title upon the person of the vendee by
operation of law.
Cruz vs. Leis
327 SCRA 570
SC: It bears stressing that notwithstanding Article
1607, the recording in the Registry of Property of the
consolidation of ownership of the vendee is not a
condition sine qua non to the transfer of ownership.
As title is already vested in the vendee a retro, his
failure to consolidate his title under Article 1607 of
the Civil Code does not impair such title or
ownership for the method prescribed thereunder is
merely for the purpose of registering the consolidated
title.
JURISDICTION OVER CONSOLIDATION OF
OWNERSHIP CASES
• Petition for Consolidation of Ownership is an action
the subject matter of which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and therefor within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (Sec. 19,
B.P.Blg. 129)
REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND
FINAL ORDERS OF THE
COMELEC AND COA
[RULE 64]
REMEDY OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY
IN FINAL JUDGMENTS OR ORDERS OF
THE COMELEC OR COA
Constitutional Basis of the Power of the Supreme
Court to review decision of COMELEC and COA
Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution provides that:
“Unless the Constitution or the law otherwise
provides, decision of the constitutional commission
shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court by way of
petition for certiorari within thirty (30) days from
receipt thereon.”
Candelario L. Versoza, Jr. vs. Guilermo N. Carague
G.R. No. 157838 [March 8, 2011]
SC: Decisions, orders, or rulings of the Commission
on Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari under Rule 65 by the aggrieved party.
DECISIONS OF THE MTC/RTC IN
ELECTION CASES
• In election cases involving an act or omission of a
MTC/RTC, the petition shall be filed exclusively
with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.
• Rule 64 provides for the review of judgments, final
orders or resolutions of the COMELEC and the COA.
Note: The orders, ruling or judgment must be issued
in the exercise of adjudicatory power or quasi-
judicial power of the COMELEC or COA.
Note: The review extends only to final decisions or
resolutions of COMELEC en banc and not to
interlocutory orders issued by a division.
DECISION OF COA & COMELEC
Annaliza Galindo and Evelinda Pinto vs. COA
G.R. No. 210788 [January 10, 2017]
SC: In administrative disciplinary cases decided by
the COA, the proper remedy in case of an adverse
decision is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission
and not a petition for certiorari before this Court
(Supreme Court) under Rule 64.
Note: Rule 64 covers only decisions, orders, or ruling
of the COMELEC and COA in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers only in all
related election controversies.
Leo Querubin, et al vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 218787 [December 8, 2015]
SC: The instant petition revolves around the issue on
whether or not Smartmatic JV is eligible to
participate in the bidding process for the
COMELEC’s procurement of 23,000 units of optical
mark readers. The case does not stem from an
election controversy involving the election,
qualification, or the returns of an elective office.
MODE OF REVIEW
[SECTION 2, RULE 64]
• A judgment or final order or resolution of the
COMELEC and the COA may be brought by the
aggrieved party to the SC on certiorari under Rule
65, except as hereinafter provided.
• Decisions and resolutions of the COMELEC and
COA are reviewable by the SC, not via an appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45 but through a special civil
action of certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule
65 of the Rules of Court.
Note: The only question that may be raised in a
petition for certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court is whether or not the COMELEC
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
RULE 64 VS. RULE 65
RULE 64 RULE 65
It involves the review It involves review of
of the judgment, final the decision, orders or
orders, or resolution of resolution of the court
the COMELEC and or tribunal exercising
COA judicial and quasi-
judicial functions
The petition shall be It shall be filed within
filed to the SC within 60 days from the notice
30 days from notice of of judgment, orders or
the judgment or final resolution or notice of
order sought to be the denial of the motion
reviewed for reconsideration or
new trial
Filing of motion for Filing of a motion for
reconsideration can be reconsideration is a
made if allowed by the condition sine qua non
Rules of the for the filing of the
Commission petition, unless it falls
under the exception
PERIOD TO FILE PETITION
[SECTION 3, RULE 64]
Sec. 3. Time to file Petition. – The petition shall be
filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration of said judgment or final order or
resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of
the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period
herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved
party may file the petition within the remaining
period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days
in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
Note: The fresh period rule will not apply in Rule 64.
FILING OF MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
• The well-established rule is that a motion for
reconsideration is an indispensable condition before
an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. The filing of the motion for reconsideration is
intended to afford the public respondent the
opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error
attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal
and factual aspects of the case.
• Exceptions: (a) where the order is a patent nullity,
as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b)
where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon
by the lower court, (c) where there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question, and
further delay would prejudice the interests of the
Government, or of the petitioner, or the subject
matter of the petition is perishable, (d) where, under
the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration
would be useless, and there is extreme urgency for
the relief, (f) where, in criminal case, relief from an
order of arrest is urgent, and the granting of such
relief by the trial court is improbable, (g) where the
proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of
due process; (h) where the proceeding ex parte or in
which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or
public interest is involved.
REMEDY IN CASE OF DENIAL OF MFR
• The aggrieved party may file a petition within the
remaining period, but which shall not be less than
five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of
the denial.
• Under Rule 64, a party may file a petition for
certiorari within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment being assailed. The reglementary period
includes the time taken to file the motion for
reconsideration and is only interrupted once the
motion is filed.
FORM AND CONTENTS OF THE
PETITION
[SECTION 5, RULE 64]
Sec. 5. Form and Contents of Petition. – The
petition shall be verified and filed in eighteen (18)
legible copies. The petition shall name the aggrieved
party as petitioner and shall join as respondents the
Commission concerned and the person or persons
interested in sustaining the judgment, final order or
resolution a quo. The petition shall state the facts
with certainty, present clearly the issues involved, set
forth the grounds and brief arguments relied upon for
review, and pray for judgment annulling or
modifying the questioned judgment, final order or
resolution. Findings of fact of the Commission
supported by substantial evidence shall be final and
non-reviewable.
The petition shall be accompanied by a clear and
legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the
judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof,
together with certified true copies of such material
portions of the records as are referred to therein and
other documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The
requisite number of copies of the petition shall
contain plain copies of all documents attached to the
original copy of said petition.
The petition shall state the specific material dates
showing that it was filed within the period fixed
herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against
forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
Section 3, Rule 46.
The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of
service of a copy thereof on the Commission
concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely
payment of docket and other lawful fees.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for
the dismissal of the petition.
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
Grave abuse of discretion refers to capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion and hostility.
Note: Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.
ORDER TO COMMENT
[SECTION 6, RULE 64]
Sec. 6. Order to Comment. – If the Supreme Court
finds the petition sufficient in form and substance, it
shall order the respondents to file their comments on
the petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof;
otherwise, the Court may dismiss the petition
outright. The Court may also dismiss the petition if it
was filed manifestly for delay, or the questions raised
are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
EFFECT OF FILING OF THE PETITION
[SECTION 8, RULE 64]
Sec. 8. Effect of Filing. – The filing of a petition for
certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment
or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed,
unless the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon
such terms as it may deem just.
SUBMISSION FOR DECISION
[SECTION 9, RULE 64]
Sec. 9. Submission for Decision. – Unless the Court
sets the case for oral argument, or requires the parties
to submit memoranda, the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision upon the filing of the
comments on the petition, or of such other pleadings
as may be required or allowed, or the expiration of
the period to do so.

CERTIORARI/PROHIBITION/MAN
DAMUS
[RULE 65]
REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER RULE 65
Rule 65 provides for the following extraordinary
remedies:
a. Certiorari (Section 1, Rule 65)
b. Prohibition (Section 2, Rule 65)
c. Mandamus (Section 3, Rule 65)
JURISDICTION OVER CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS UNDER
RULE 65
The following courts may entertain petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, to wit:
1. Supreme Court (Section 5, Art. VIII of the
1987 Constitution; Section 1, Rule 56-A);
2. Court of Appeals (Section 9, B.P. Blg. 129);
3. Sandiganbayan (P.D. No. 1606, as amended
by R.A. No. 7975, R.A. No. 8249, and R.A.
No. 10660);
4. Regional Trial Court (Sec. 21, B.P. Blg.
129); and
5. Shari’ah District Court (Art. 413 of P.D. No.
1083, otherwise known as The Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines)
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
A. Writ of Certiorari
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Associations,
Inc. vs. Energy Regulatory Commission
G.R. No. 174697 [July 8, 2010]
SC: The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy
that the Court issues only under closely defined
grounds and procedures that litigants and their
lawyers must scrupulously observe. They cannot
seek refuge under the umbrella of this remedy on the
basis of an undemonstrated claim that they raise
issues of transcendental importance, while at the
same time flouting the basic ground rules for the
remedy’s grant.
B. Petition for Certiorari
Lopez Tan vs. Sps. Antazo
G.R. No. 187208 [February 23, 2011]
SC: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Requirements are alleged in and established by the
petition.
C. History and Purpose of Certiorari
Sps. Humberto Delos Santos and Carmencita Delos
Santos vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
G.R. No. 153852 [October 24, 2012]
SC: In the common law, from which the remedy of
certiorari evolved, the writ of certiorari was issued
out of Chancery, or the King’s Bench, commanding
agents or officers of the inferior courts to return the
record of a cause pending before them, so as to give
the party more sure and speedy justice, for the writ
would enable the superior court to determine from an
inspection of the record whether the inferior court’s
judgment was rendered without authority. The errors
were of such a nature that, if allowed to stand, they
would result in a substantial injury to the petitioner to
whom no other remedy was available. If the inferior
court acted without authority, the record was then
revised and corrected in matters of law. The writ of
certiorari was limited to cases in which the inferior
court was said to be exceeding its jurisdiction or was
not proceeding according to essential requirements of
law and would lie only to review judicial or quasi-
judicial acts.
D. Nature of a Certiorari Proceeding
Winston F. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al
G.R. No. 169005 [January 28, 2013]
SC: A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and
narrow in character. The special civil action of
certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without
jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to
correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure
or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the
lower court. As long as the court acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more
than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an
appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari.
CERTIORARI IS AN INDEPENDENT
ACTION NOT A PART OR
CONTINUATION OF TRIAL
Juliano-Llave vs. Republic
G.R. No. 169766 [March 30, 2011]
SC: An application for certiorari is an independent
action which is not part or a continuation of the trial
which resulted in the rendition of the judgment
complained of.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
345 SCRA 63
SC: It is a remedy of last recourse and is a limited
form of review.
CERTIORARI NOT A MODE OF APPEAL
Yasuda vs. Court of Appeals
330 SCRA 385 [2000]
SC: A petition for certiorari is not a mode of appeal
where the appellate court reviews errors of fact or
law committed by the lower court. The issue in Rule
65 is whether or not the lower court acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.
Republic vs. Villarama, Jr.
278 SCRA 736 [1997]
SC: This remedy is extraordinary and its use is
restricted to truly extraordinary cases.
FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
[SECTION 1, RULE 65]
Sec. 1. Petition for Certiorari. – When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of of its or his
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true
copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject
thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in
the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
CONDITIONS IN ORDER THAT
CERTIORARI MAY LIE
• Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, is
granted only under the conditions defined by the
Rules of Court. The conditions are that: (1) the
respondent tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; and (2) there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of
Brethren Foundation, Inc. vs. Hon. Teodoro Riel
G.R. No. 176508 [January 12, 2015]
SC: Without jurisdiction means that the court acted
with absolute lack of authority; there is excess of
jurisdiction when the court transcends its power or
acts without any statutory authority; grave abuse of
discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or
excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility;
and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at
all in contemplation of law.
WHO CAN FILE FOR CERTIORARI?
Note: The person who can file a petition for
certiorari must be a party at the trial court.
Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles
G.R. No. 182645 [June 22, 2011]
SC: Thus, a person not a party to the proceedings in
the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain an action
for certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the
judgment reviewed. Stated differently, if a petition
for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was
not a party in the lower court, he has no standing to
question the assailed order.
RULE 65 VS. RULE 45
Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), et al vs. City Advertising Ventures
Corporation
G.R. No. 182944 [November 9, 2016]
SC: A Rule 65 petition is an original action,
independent of the action from which the assailed
ruling arose. A Rule 45 petition, on the other hand, is
a mode of appeal. As such, it is a continuation of the
case subject of the appeal. As it is a mere
continuation, a Rule 45 petition (apart from being
limited to questions of law) cannot go beyond the
issues that were subject of the original action giving
rise to it. Rule 45 petitions engendered by prior Rule
65 petitions for certiorari and/or prohibition are,
therefore, bound by the same basic issue at the crux
of the prior Rule 65 petition, that is, ‘issues of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.’ When Rule
45 petitions are brought before the Supreme Court,
they remain tethered to the ‘sole office’ of the
original action to which they owe their existence: ‘the
correction of errors of jurisdiction including the
commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
CASH OR SURETY BOND NOT
REQUIRED IN PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI
• The requirement of a cash or surety bond as
provided under Article 223 of the Labor Code only
apply to appeals from the orders of the Labor Arbiter
to the NLRC. It does not apply to special civil
actions such as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. In fact, nowhere under Rule
65 does it state that a bond is required for the filing of
the petition.
JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL
POWER
• As provided in Section 1, a writ of certiorari is
directed against a tribunal exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.
Q: What is Judicial Power?
A: It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. (Section 1,
Second Par. of Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution)
Q: What is Quasi-Judicial Power?
A: It is the power of a quasi-judicial/administrative
bodies to hear and decide cases falling within its
jurisdiction.
WHEN IS A TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR
OFFICER CONSIDERED TO BE
EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS?
1. A respondent is said to be exercising judicial
function where he has the power to determine what
the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are,
and then undertakes to determine these questions and
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.
2. Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to
the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative
officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and
draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature.
AN OFFICE PERFORMING EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS NOT SUBJECT OF
CERTIORARI
Advocates for Truth in Lending, Inc., et al vs.
Bangko Sentral Monetary Board, et al
G.R. No. 192986 [January 15, 2013]
SC: The Central Bank Monetary Board (now BSP-
MB) was created to perform executive functions with
respect to the establishment, operation or liquidation
of banking and credit institutions, and branches and
agencies thereof. It does not perform judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. Certainly, the issuance of
CB Circular No. 905 was done in the exercise of an
executive function. Certiorari will not lie in the
instant case.
AN OFFICE PERFORMING EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS NOT SUBJECT OF
CERTIORARI
Sps. Antonio and Fe Yusay vs. Court of Appeals, et
al
G.R. No. 156684 [April 6, 2011]
SC: Based on the foregoing, certiorari did not lie
against the Sangguniang Panglungsod, which was
not a part of the Judiciary settling an actual
controversy involving legally demandable and
enforceable rights, but a legislative and policy-
making body declaring its sentiment or opinion.
CERTIORARI CANNOT BE A
SUBSTITUTE FOR APPEAL
Guerrero vs. Domingo
G.R. No. 156142 [March 23, 2011]
SC: Just as certiorari cannot be made a substitute for
an appeal where the latter remedy is available but
was lost through the fault or negligence of petitioner,
prohibition should not lie when petitioner could have
resorted to other remedies that are now lost due to its
own neglect.
Ligaya Santos vs. Domingo I. Orda, Jr.
G.R. No. 189402 [May 6, 2010]
SC: It is elementary that the special civil action of
certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an
appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as it was
in this case. A special civil action under Rule 65
cannot cure a party’s failure to timely appeal the
assailed decision or resolution. Rule 65 is an
independent action that cannot be availed of as a
substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT
CERTIORARI IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE
FOR A LOST APPEAL
While there exists a rule precluding certiorari as a
remedy against the final order when appeal is
available, a petition for certiorari may be allowed
when:
1. The broader interest of justice demands that
certiorari be given due course to avoid any
grossly unjust result that would otherwise
befall the petitioners; and
2. The order of the RTC evidently constitutes
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT
CERTIORARI IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE
FOR A LOST APPEAL
Francisco Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
SC: The requirement that there must be no appeal, or
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law admits of exceptions, such as:
a. When it is necessary to prevent irreparable
damages and injury to a party;
b. When the trial judge capriciously and
whimsically exercised his judgment;
c. Where there may be danger of a failure of
justice;
d. Where an appeal would be slow, inadequate,
and insufficient;
e. Where the issue raised is one purely of law;
f. Where public interest is involved; and
g. In case of urgency.
ONLY ERRORS OF JURISDICTION MAY
BE REVIEWED IN A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI
Nemesio Goco, et al vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 157449 [April 6, 2010]
SC: Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as
long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such
correction is normally beyond the province of
certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction,
but an error of law or fact - a mistake of judgment –
appeal is the remedy.
Mansion Printing Center and Clement Cheng vs.
Diosdado Bitara, Jr.
G.R. No. 168120 [January 25, 2012]
SC: The raison d’etre for the rule is when a court
exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so
engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being
exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every
error committed by a court would deprive it of its
jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a
void judgment. Hence, where the issue or question
involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the
decision – not the jurisdiction of the court to render
said decision – the same is beyond the province of a
special civil action for certiorari.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN WITHOUT,
EXCESS, AND GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION
1. “Without jurisdiction” – means that the
court acted with absolute lack of authority
(Alafriz vs. Noble, 72 Phil. 278)
2. There is “excess of jurisdiction” when the
court transcends its power or acts without
any statutory authority.
3. “Grave abuse of discretion” implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as to be equivalent to lack or
excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power
is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or
personal hostility; and such exercise is so
patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion
of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal
either to perform the duty enjoined or to act
at all in contemplation of law. (Pure Foods
Corp. vs. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415)
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION VS.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION
Winston F. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al
G.R. No. 169005 [January 28, 2013]
SC: In a petition for certiorari, the public respondent
acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal
power to determine the case; there is excess of
jurisdiction, where the respondent, being clothed with
the power to determine the case, oversteps its
authority as determined by law. There is grave abuse
of discretion where the public respondent acts in a
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in
the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of
discretion is not enough.
CASES OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION
Miguel vs. JCT Group, Inc.
G.R. No. 157752 [March 16, 2005]
SC: The failure of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
to express the factual and legal bases for their
decisions is an evasion of their constitutional duty, an
evasion that constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Meynardo Sabili vs. COMELEC, et al
G.R. No. 193261 [April 24, 2012]
SC: The use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in
deciding an issue is sufficient to taint a decision-
maker’s action with grave abuse of discretion.
REMEDY IN CASE OF AN
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER IS
CERTIORARI NOT APPEAL
Priscilla Alma Jose vs. Ramon C. Javellana, et al
G.R. No. 158239 [January 25, 2012]
SC: The reason for disallowing an appeal from an
interlocutory order is to avoid multiplicity of appeals
in a single action, which necessarily suspends the
hearing and decision on the merits of the action
during the pendency of the appeals. Permitting
multiple appeals will necessarily delay the trial on the
merits of the case for a considerable length of time,
and will compel the adverse party to incur
unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may
interpose as many appeals as there are incidental
questions raised by him and as there are interlocutory
orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An
interlocutory order may be the subject of an appeal,
but only after a judgment has been rendered, with the
ground for appealing the order being included in the
appeal of the judgment itself.
RULE 65 VS. RULE 45
RULE 45 RULE 65
A continuation of the Is an independent
appellate process over action and cannot be
the original case availed as a substitute
for the lost remedy of
appeal.
A mode of appeal One of the requisites is
that there is no
available appeal or any
plain, speedy and
adequate remedy
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION
[SECTION 2, RULE 65]
Prohibition - is a special civil action against a
tribunal, corporation, officer, or person exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial function which
is alleged in a verified petition filed by an aggrieved
party to be acting or about to act without jurisdiction
or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceeding in the
action or matter specified therein, or otherwise
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice
may require.
Function of Prohibition
To prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of
legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly
administration of justice (Yusay vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011)
WHEN IS THE REMEDY OF
PROHIBITION PROPER
[SECTION 2, RULE 65]
Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. – When the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceedings in the action or matter specified therein,
or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the judgment, order or
resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
REQUISITES FOR A PETITION FOR
PROHIBITION
For a party to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, he
must establish the following requisites:
1. It must be directed against a tribunal,
corporation, board or person exercising
functions, judicial or ministerial;
2. The tribunal, corporation, board or person
has acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion; and
3. There is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
MATTERS TO BE ALLEGED IN A
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION
A person aggrieved may filed a petition in the proper
court, alleging the following:
1. The facts with certainty;
 2. Praying that judgment be rendered when refused, of a ministerial duty, which, as
commanding the respondent to desist from opposed to a discretionary one, is that which an
further proceedings in the action or matter officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,
specified therein; or in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate
3. Otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of
law and justice may require; his or its own judgment upon the propriety or
4. The petition shall likewise be accompanied impropriety of the act done.
by a certified true copy of the judgment,
order or resolution subject thereof, copies of NATURE OF MANDAMUS: MINISTERIAL
all pleadings and documents relevant and DUTY
pertinent thereto; and • A key principle to be observed in dealing with
5. A sworn certification of non-forum shopping petitions for mandamus is that such extraordinary
as provided in the third paragraph of Section remedy lies to compel the performance of duties that
3, Rule 46. are purely ministerial in nature, not those that are
discretionary.
FILING OF MFR REQUIRED
General Rule: The filing of a motion for Special People, Inc. Foundation vs. Nestor M.
reconsideration is required before resorting to Canda, et al
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. G.R. No. 160932 [January 14, 2013]
Exceptions: SC: A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an
1. When only pure questions of law are officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,
raised; or in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate
2. The questioned order is a patent nullity of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise
of its own judgment upon the propriety or
PROHIBITION VS. PRELIMINARY impropriety of the act done. The duty is ministerial
PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION only when its discharge requires neither the exercise
PROHIBITION INJUNCTION of official discretion or judgment.
It is directed against Is generally directed
tribunal, corporation, against a party in the Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee
board, officer or person, action. G.R. No. 176831 [January 15, 2010]
whether exercising SC: The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who
judicial or ministerial seek to enforce a public right and to compel the
functions performance of a public duty, most especially when
the public right involved is mandated by the
May be on the ground Does not involve the Constitution.
that the court against jurisdiction of the court
whom the writ is sought WHEN PETITION FOR MANDAMUS
acted without or in PROPER
excess of jurisdiction [SECTION 3, RULE 65]
Is always a main action. May be the main action Sec. 3. Petition for Mandamus. – When any tribunal,
Hence, for a temporary itself, or just a corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
restraint in a proceeding provisional remedy in neglects the performance of an act which the law
for prohibition, the main action. specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
preliminary injunction trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from
must be sought therein the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled, and there is no other plain,
PETITION FOR MANDAMUS speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
Mandamus – is a command issuing from a court of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
or sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
board, or to some corporation or person, requiring the commanding the respondent, immediately or at some
performance of a particular duty therein specified, other time to be specified by the court, to do the act
which duty results from the official station of the required to be done to protect the rights of the
party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the
of law. It is employed to compel the performance,
petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of
non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
WHEN PETITION FOR MANDAMUS
AVAILABLE
The remedy is available when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person:
1. Unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station; or
2. Unlawfully excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office which
such other is entitled; and
3. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES NECESSARY BEFORE
AVAILMENT OF MANDAMUS
Special People Foundation, Inc. vs. Nestor M.
Canda, et al
G.R. No. 160932 [January 14, 2013]
SC: The issues that an administrative agency is
authorized to decide should not be summarily taken
away from it and submitted to a court of law without
first giving the agency the opportunity to dispose of
the issues upon due deliberation. The court of law
must allow the administrative agency to carry out its
functions and discharge its responsibilities within the
specialized areas of its competence.
MANDAMUS IS AVAILABLE IN CASE OF
EXECUTION OF FINAL AND
EXECUTORY JUDGMENT
FGU Insurance Corporation vs. RTC of Makati,
Branch 66, et al
G.R. No. 161282 [February 23, 2011]
SC: A writ of mandamus lies to compel the judge to
issue a writ of execution when the judgment had
already become final and executory and the
prevailing party is entitled to the same as a matter of
right.
WHEN MANDAMUS NOT PROPER
Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee
G.R. No. 176831 [January 15, 2010]
SC: The writ of mandamus will not issue to compel
an official to do anything which is not his duty to do
or which it is his duty not to do, or to give the
applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law.
Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is
in substantial dispute or as to which substantial doubt
exists, although objection raising a mere technical
question will be disregarded if the right is clear and
the case is meritorious.
Mandamus cannot also be used to enforce
contractual obligations. Generally, mandamus will
not lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and
will not lie against an individual unless some
obligation in the nature of a public or quasi-public
duty is imposed.
Rogelio Laygo and Willie Laygo vs. Municipal
Mayor of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya
G.R. No. 188448 [January 11, 2017]
SC: As a general rule, a writ of mandamus will not
issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of
a public officer since it is his judgment that is to be
exercised and not that of the court. Courts will not
interfere to modify, control or inquire into the
exercise of this discretion unless it be alleged and
proven that there has been an abuse or an excess of
authority on the part of the officer concerned.
Arturo M. De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council,
et al
G.R. No. 191002 [March 17, 2010]
SC: Mandamus will not lie in case of premature acts.
In this case, the JBC still has until May 17, 2010, at
the latest, within which to submit the list of nominees
to the President to fill the vacancy created by the
compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno.
WHEN MANDAMUS PROPER
Sps. Fernando and Angelina Edralin vs. Philippine
Veterans Bank
G.R. No. 168523 [March 9, 2011]
SC: Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the
issuance of a writ of possession. The purpose of
mandamus is to compel the performance of a
ministerial duty. A ministerial act is “one which an
officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,
in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate
of legal authority, without regard to or exercise of his
own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of
the act done.
MANDAMUS VS. MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
 MANDAMUS MANDATORY discretionary discretionary only
INJUNCTION acts and ministerial
Is an extraordinary Commands the acts
remedy that can be performance of some Shall lie only Shall lie Shall lie
resorted only in case of positive act to correct a against a against against
extreme necessity wrong in the past (Sps. respondent respondents respondents
where the ordinary Gonzalo T. Dela Rosa exercising who exercise who exercise
forms of procedure are vs. Heirs of Juan judicial or judicial and/or judicial and/or
powerless to afford Valdez, G.R. No. quasi-judicial non-judicial non-judicial
relief where there is no 159101, July 27, 2011) functions. functions functions
other clear, adequate
and speedy remedy.
Before a writ may be MANDAMUS VS CONTINUING
issued, it is obligatory MANDAMUS
upon the petitioner to MANDAMUS CONTINUING
exhaust all remedies in MANDAMUS
the ordinary course of s an extraordinary Is a writ issued by a
law. He must show that remedy that can be court in an
the duty sought to be resorted only in case of environmental case
performed must be one extreme necessity directing any agency or
which the law where the ordinary instrumentality of the
specifically enjoins as a forms of procedure are government or officer
duty resulting from an powerless to afford thereof to perform an
office (Aquino vs. relief where there is no act or series of acts
Mariano, 129 SCRA other clear, adequate decreed by final
532) and speedy remedy. judgment which shall
Before a writ may be remain effective until
Is directed against a Is generally directed issued, it is obligatory judgment is fully
tribunal, board, officer against a party in the upon the petitioner to satisfied (Sec. 4, Rule
or person exercising action. exhaust all remedies in 18, Part I, A.M. No. 09-
ministerial functions. the ordinary course of 6-8, Rules of Procedure
May be on the ground Does not involve the law. He must show that for Environmental
that the court against jurisdiction of the court, the duty sought to be Cases)
whom the writ is sought but rather the performed must be one
acted without or in performance of an which the law
excess of jurisdiction action enjoined by law specifically enjoins as a
and unlawfully neglects as a duty. duty resulting from an
the performance of an office (Aquino vs.
act which the law Mariano, 129 SCRA
specifically enjoins as a 532)
duty being ministerial
in nature. Petition for mandamus Petition for continuing
can be filed before the mandamus can be filed
CERTIORARI VS. PROHIBITION VS. Supreme Court, Court with the Supreme
MANDAMUS of Appeals, Court, Court of
CERTIORA PROHIBITI MANDAMUS Sandiganbayan, RTC. Appeals, and RTC.
RI ON
Is intended to Is intended to Is intended to WHEN AND WHERE TO FILE THE
correct an act prevent the compel the PETITION
performed by commission or performance [SECTION 4, RULE 65]
the carrying out of of an act Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. – The
respondents. an act. desired. petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In
Extends only Extends to Extends to case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
to both ministerial acts timely filed, whether such motion is required or not,
the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60)
days counted from the notice of the denial of the
motion.
If the petition relate to an act or an omission of a
municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an
officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial
area as defined by Supreme Court. It may also be
filed with the Court of Appeals or with the
Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of
the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition
involves an act or omission of a quasi-judicial
agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these
rules, the petition shall be filed with and cognizable
only by the Court of Appeals.
WHEN AND WHERE TO FILE THE
PETITION
[SECTION 4, RULE 65]
In election cases involving an act or an omission of a
municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall
be filed exclusively with the Commission on
Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (As
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 27,
2007)
General Rule as to period of filing: A Petition for
Certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days
from notice of judgment or from the order denying a
motion for reconsideration.
Exceptions:
1. Most persuasive and weighty reasons
2. To relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply
with the prescribed procedure
3. Good faith of the defaulting party by
immediately paying within a reasonable time
from the time of default
4. The existence of special or compelling
circumstances
5. The merits of the case
6. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault
or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules
EXCEPTIONS TO THE 60-DAY PERIOD
OF FILING
Exceptions:
7. A lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory
8. The other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby
9. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence without appellant’s fault
10. Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each case
11. In the name of substantial justice and fair
play
12. Importance of the issues involved
13. Exercise of sound discretion by the judge
guided by all the attendant circumstances
Q: Can the 60-day period be extended?
A: No.
WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION?
1. If the petition relate to an act or omission of
a MTC or of a corporation, a board, an
officer or a person, it shall be filed with the
RTC exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area.
2. It may also be filed with the Court of
Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan,
whether or not the same is in aid of the
court’s appellate jurisdiction.
3. If the petition involves an act or an omission
of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
provided by law or these rules, the petition
shall be filed with and be cognizable only by
the Court of Appeals.
4. In election cases involving an act or
omission of a MTC or RTC, the petition
shall be filed exclusively with the
Commission on Elections, in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE
COURTS IN CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS CASES
Rule: Although courts have concurrent jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction, such
concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted
freedom of choice of court forum.
Constancio F. Mendoza and Sangguniang Brgy. of
Balatasan, Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro
G.R. No. 187256 [February 23, 2011]
SC: A direct invocation of the original jurisdiction to
issue those writs should be allowed only when there
are special and important reasons therefore; clearly
and specifically set out in the petition.
Material dates rule
Under the material dates rule, a petition must allege
three (3) material dates which are necessary, to wit:
 1. The date when the judgment or final order or
resolution was received
2. The date when the motion for
reconsideration or new trial was filed
3. The date when the notice of the denial
thereof was received.
FILING OF A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE
PETITION
Republic of the Philippines vs. Pantranco North
Express, Inc.
G.R. No. 178593 [February 15, 2012]
SC: It must be emphasized that the filing of a motion
for reconsideration and filing it on time are not mere
technicalities of procedure. These are jurisdictional
and mandatory requirements which must be strictly
complied with. Thus, the failure to file a motion for
reconsideration with the NLRC before availing
oneself of the special civil action for certiorari is a
fatal infirmity.
Tan vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 108634 [July 17, 1997]
SC: The reason is that motion for reconsideration
will afford the respondent court an opportunity to
correct the errors imputed to it.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON THE
FILING OF A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
The following instances allows resort to the remedy
of certiorari even without the required motion for
reconsideration:
1. Where the order is a patent nullity, as where
the court a quo has no jurisdiction
2. Where the question raised in the certiorari
proceeding have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as
those raised and passed upon in the lower
court
3. Where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question and any further
delay would prejudice the interest of the
government or the petitioner or the subject
of the action is perishable
4. Where, under the circumstances, a motion
for reconsideration would be useless
5. Where petitioner was deprived of due
process, and there is extreme urgency for
relief
6. Where, in a criminal case, relief from an
order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable
7. Where the proceedings in the lower court are
a nullity for lack of due process
8. Where the proceeding were ex parte or in
which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object
9. Where the issue raised is one purely of law
or where public interest is involved.
DUTY OF THE RESPONDENTS AND
COST
[SECTION 5, RULE 65]
Sec. 5. Respondents and Costs in Certain Cases. –
When the petition filed relates to the acts or omission
of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner
shall join, as private respondent or respondents with
such public respondent or respondents, the person or
persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the
court; and it shall be the duty of such private
respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their
own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or
respondents affected by the proceedings, and the
costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the
petitioner shall be against the private respondents
only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial
agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court
where the petition is pending, the public respondents
shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to
the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is
elevated to a higher court by either party, the public
respondents shall be included therein as nominal
parties. However, unless otherwise specifically
directed by the court, they shall not appear or
participate in the proceedings therein.
ORDER TO COMMENT
[SECTION 6, RULE 65]
Sec. 6. Order to Comment. – If the petition is
sufficient in form and substance to justify such
process, the court shall issue an order requiring the
respondent or respondents to comment on the petition
within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Such order shall be served on the respondents in such
manner as the court may direct, together with a copy
of the petition and any annexes thereto.
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of Section 2,
Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course
thereto, the court may require the respondents to file
their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the
petition. Thereafter, the court may require the filing
of a reply and such other responsive or other
pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper.
EXPEDITING PROCEEDINGS
[SECTION 7, RULE 65]
Sec. 7. Expediting Proceedings; Injunctive Relief. –
The court in which the petition is filed may issue
orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also
grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction for the preservation of the
rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The
petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal
case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the
public respondent from further proceeding with the
cases.
The public respondent shall proceed with principal
case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition
for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a
temporary restraining order or a preliminary
injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the
public respondent to proceed with the principal case
may be a ground for an administrative charge.
EFFECT OF FILING THE PETITION
Gen. Rule: The petition shall not interrupt the course
of the principal case
Exception: A TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from
further proceeding with the cases.
De Leon vs. PEA
G.R. No. 181970 [August 3, 2010]
SC: It is true that there are instances where, even if
there is NO writ of preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order issued by a higher court it
would be proper for a lower court or court of origin
to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial
courtesy. The principle of judicial courtesy,
however, remains to be the exception rather than the
rule.
PROCEEDING AFTER COMMENT IS
FILED
[SECTION 8, RULE 65]
Sec. 8. Proceeding After Comment is Filed. – After
the comment or other pleadings required by the court
are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired,
the court may hear the case or require the parties to
submit memoranda. If after such hearing or filing of
memoranda or upon the expiration of the period for
filing, the court finds that the allegations of the
petition are true, it shall render judgment for such
relief to which the petitioner is entitled.
However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds
the same patently without merit or prosecuted
manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein
are too unsubstantial to require consideration. In
such event, the court may award in favor of the
respondent treble costs solidarily against the
petitioner and counsel, in addition to subjecting
counsel to administrative sanctions under Rules 139
and 139-B of the Rules of Court.
The court may impose motu proprio, based on res
ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or
measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and
unmeritorious petitions for certiorari.
SERVICE AND ENFORCEMENT OF
ORDER OR JUDGMENT
[SECTION 9, RULE 65]
Sec. 9. Service and Enforcement of Order or
Judgment. – A certified copy of the judgment
rendered in accordance with the last preceding
section shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial
agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
concerned in such manner as the court may direct,
and disobedience thereto shall be punished as
contempt. An execution may issue for any damages
or costs awarded in accordance with Section 1 of
Rule 39.
CASES WHERE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND
MANDAMUS AGAINST AN
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER ARE
PROHIBITED
The following instances prohibit the filing of a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against an interlocutory order being prohibited
pleadings:
1. Forcible entry, unlawful detainer, and in all
other claims (except probate proceedings),
where the claim exceeds one hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) outside, and
two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
within Metro Manila. (Sec. 19 [g], Rule on
Summary Proceedings)
2. Where the amount of the claim for payment
of money or where the value of the claim
does not exceed two hundred thousand
(P200,000.00) pesos. (Sec. 14, A.M. No. 08-
8-07, effective October 27, 2008, as
amended).

QUO WARRANTO
[RULE 66]
DEFINITION
Quo Warranto – is a special civil action brought by
means of a verified petition in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines against (a) a person who
usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises
a public office, position, or franchise; or (b) a public
officer who does an act which constitutes a ground
for the forfeiture of his office; or (c) an association
which acts as a corporation within the Philippines
without being legally incorporated or without
authority so to act.
ACTION BY GOVERNMENT AGAINST
INDIVIDUALS
[SECTION 1, RULE 66]
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 holds 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; or
3. An association which acts as a corporation
within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority so
to act.
A PRIVATE PERSON FILING A
PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO MUST
SHOW CLEAR RIGHT TO THE
CONTESTED OFFICE
Hon. Philip A. Aguinaldo, et al vs. His Excellency
President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al
G.R. No. 224302 [November 29, 2016]
SC: For a quo warranto petition to be successful, the
private person suing must show a clear right to the
contested office. In fact, not even a mere preferential
right to be appointed thereto can lend a modicum of
legal ground to proceed with the action.
HRET HAS JURISDICTION OVER
PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO
REYNALD F. VILANDO VS. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL
G.R. Nos. 192147 and 192149 [August 23, 2011]
SC: The HRET has jurisdiction over quo warranto
petitions, specifically over cases challenging
ineligibility on the ground of lack of citizenship.
WHEN SOLICITOR GENERAL OR
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MUST/MAY
COMMENCE ACTION FOR QUO
WARRANTO
[SECTIONS 2 AND 3, RULE 66]
Sec. 2. When Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor
Must Commence Action. – The Solicitor General or
a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of
the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise
he has good reason to believe that any case specified
in the preceding section can be established by proof,
must commence such action.
Sec. 3. When Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor
may Commence with Permission of Court. – The
Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may, with the
permission of the court in which the action is to be
commenced, bring such an action at the request and
upon the relation of another person; but in which case
the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity
for the expenses and costs of the action in an amount
approved by and to be deposited in the court by the
person at whose request and upon whose relation the
same is brought.
INSTANCE WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL MAY
COMMENCE AN ACTION FOR QUO
WARRANTO
[SECTION 5, RULE 66]
Sec. 5. When an Individual may Commence such
an Action. – A person claiming to be entitled to a
public office or position usurped or unlawfully held
or exercised by another may bring an action therefore
in his own name.
PARTIES AND CONTENTS OF THE
PETITION AGAINST USURPATION
[SECTION 6, RULE 66]
Sec. 6. Parties and Contents of Petition Against
Usurpation. – When the action is against a person for
usurping a public office, position or franchise, the
petition shall set forth the name of the person who
claims to be entitled thereto, if any, with an averment
of his right to the same and that the respondent is
unlawfully in possession thereof. 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.
VENUE OF THE ACTION
[SECTION 7, RULE 66]
Sec. 7. Venue. – An action under the preceding six
Sections can be brought only in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where
the respondent or any of the respondents resides, but
when the Solicitor General commences the action, it
may be brought in a Regional Trial Court in the City
of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme
Court.
Where and which court can a petition for
usurpation be filed?
It can be brought in the following courts:
1. Supreme Court;
2. The Court of Appeals; or
3. In the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area where the respondent or any
of the respondents resides.
In case the petition is commenced by the Solicitor
General, where is the venue?
1. Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila;
2. In the Court of Appeals; or
3. In the Supreme Court
PERIOD OF FILING PLEADINGS AND
PROCEEDINGS
[SECTION 8, RULE 66]
Sec. 8. Period for Pleadings and Proceedings may
be Reduced; Action Given Precedence. – The court
may reduce the period provided by these Rules for
filing pleadings and for all other proceedings in the
action in order to secure the most expeditious
determination of the matters involved therein
consistent with the rights of the parties. Such action
may be given precedence over any other civil matter
pending in the court.
JUDGMENT WHERE USURPATION
FOUND
[SECTION 9, RULE 66]
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 such respondent be ousted and
altogether excluded therefrom, and 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 PERSONS ADJUDGED
ENTITLED TO PUBLIC OFFICE
[SECTION 10, RULE 66]
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 the oath of office
and executing any official bond required by law, take
upon himself the execution of the office, and 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. If the respondent refuses or
neglects to deliver any book or paper pursuant to
such demand, he may be punished for contempt as
having disobeyed a lawful order of the court. The
person adjudged entitled to the office may also bring
action against the respondent to recover damages
sustained by such person by reason of the usurpation.
PERIOD TO FILE THE ACTION
[SECTION 11, RULE 66]
Sec. 11. Limitations. - Nothing contained in this Rule
shall be construed to authorize an action against a
public officer or employee for his ouster from office
unless the same be commenced within one (1) year
after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the ouster of the holder
petitioner to hold such office or position, arose; nor to from its enjoyment.
authorize an action for damages in accordance with
the provisions of the next preceding section unless Where there is Where the respondent,
the same be commenced within one (1) year after the usurpation or intrusion without claiming any
entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner’s into an office, QW is right to an office,
right to the office in question. the proper remedy. excludes the petitioner
therefrom, the remedy
JUDGMENT FOR COST is mandamus.
[SECTION 12, RULE 66]
Sec. 12. Judgment for Cost. – In an action brought in
accordance with the provisions of this Rule, the court
may render judgment for costs against either the
petitioner, the relator, or the respondent, or the person
or persons claiming to be a corporation, or may
apportion the costs, as justice requires.
EXPROPRIATION
DISTINCTIONS: QUO WARRANTO AND [RULE 67]
ELECTION PROTEST
QUO WARRANTO ELECTION DEFINITION AND BASIS OF
PROTEST EXPROPRIATION
The ground in QW is The proper ground of Expropriation – refers to the exercise of the State’s
the disqualification or an election protest is right to eminent domain.
ineligibility of the irregularities in the
proclaimed candidate conduct of an election Eminent Domain – is the power of the State to take
private property for public use. It is an inherent
If the respondent is In EP, the protestant power of State as it is a power necessary for the
found ineligible, the who prevails will State’s existence; As an inherent power, it does not
petitioner will not assume the contested need at all to be embodied in the Constitution; if it is
automatically assume office provided he had mentioned at all, it is solely for the purposes of
the office but may only obtained the plurality of limiting what is otherwise an unlimited power. The
recover the costs of votes. limitation is found in the Bill of Rights – that part of
suit, such respective the Constitution whose provisions all aim at the
right to the position to protection of individuals against the excessive
be rendered only in a exercise of governmental powers (Republic of the
further judgment. Philippines vs. Sps. Tan Song Bok, G.R. No. 191448,
What is to be What is to be November 16, 2011)
determined is the determined is the
eligibility of the legality of the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON
candidate-elect. appointment. EXPROPRIATION
• As expressly mentioned in Sec. 9, Article III of the
When the candidate- The court determines 1987 Constitution, “No private property shall be
elect is found to be who has been legally taken for public use without payment of just
ineligible, the court appointed and shall compensation.”
cannot declare that the declare who is entitled
candidate who obtained to occupy the office. Q: What is the meaning of “Compensable
the second highest Taking?”
number of votes has A: The taking of private property for public use, to be
been elected even if he compensable, need not be an actual physical taking or
were eligible. appropriation. Compensable taking includes
Is the remedy to test the Is the remedy to destruction, restriction, diminution, or interruption of
title to one’s office enforce clear legal the rights of ownership or of the common and
claimed by another and duties and not to try necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a
has as its object the disputed titles. lawful manner, lessening or destroying its value. It is
neither necessary that the owner be wholly deprived
of the use of his property, nor material whether the
property is removed from the possession of the
owner, or in any respect changes hands. (National
Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit
Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011)
“PUBLIC USE”
Rule: Expropriation must be for public use only.
Q: What is the meaning of “public use?”
A: Public use has now acquired an expansive
meaning to include any use that is of “usefully,
utility, or advantage, or what is productive of the
general benefit of the public. If the genuine public
necessity – the very reason or condition as it were –
allowing, at the first instance, the expropriation of a
private land ceases or disappears, then there is no
more cogent point for the government’s retention of
the expropriated land. The same legal situation
should hold if the government devotes the property to
another public use very much different from the
original or deviates from the declared purpose to the
benefit of another private person.
Vda. de Ouano vs. Republic
G.R. No. 168770 [February 9, 2011]
SC: It has been said that the direct use by the state of
its power to oblige landowners to renounce their
productive possession to another citizen, who will use
it predominantly for the citizen’s own private gain, is
offensive to our laws.
The taking of a private land in expropriation
proceedings is always conditioned in its continued
devotion to its public purpose. Once the purpose is
terminated or peremptorily abandoned, then the
former owner, if he so desires, may seek its reversion
subject of course to the return at the very least of the
just compensation received.
DUE PROCESS IN EXPROPRIATION
Vda. de Ouano vs. Republic
G.R. No. 168770 [February 9, 2011]
SC: In expropriation, the private owner is deprived of
property against his will. Withal, the mandatory
requirement of due process ought to be strictly
followed, such that the State must show, at the
minimum, a genuine need, an exacting public
purpose to take private property, the purpose to be
specifically alleged or at least reasonably deductible
from the complaint.
JURISDICTION IN EXPROPRIATION
CASES
• Under Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC has
exclusive original jurisdiction over complaint for
expropriation since the subject matter of which is the
right of the State to expropriate a private property
upon payment of just compensation which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Rule: Prohibition does not lie against expropriation.
Exception:
Sps. Antonio and Fe Yusay vs. CA and City Council
of Mandaluyong
G.R. No. 156684 [April 6, 2011]
SC: Once the State decides to exercise its power of
eminent domain, the power of judicial review
becomes limited in scope, and the courts will be left
to determine the appropriate amount of just
compensation to be paid to the affected landowners.
Only when the landowners are not given their just
compensation for the taking of their property of just
compensation may the remedy of prohibition become
available.
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR
EMINENT DOMAIN
[SECTION 1, RULE 67]
Sec. 1. The Complaint. – The right of eminent
domain shall be exercised by the filing of a verified
complaint which shall state with certainty the right
and purpose of expropriation, describe the real or
personal property sought to be expropriated, and join
as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own,
or occupying, any part thereof or interest therein,
showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of
each defendant. If the title to any property sought to
be expropriated appears to be in the Republic of the
Philippines, although occupied by private individuals,
or if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that
the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or certainty specify
who are the real owners, averment to that effect shall
be made in the complaint.

ENTRY OF PLAINTIFF UPON DEPOSIT
OF CASH VALUE
[SECTION 2, RULE 67]
Sec. 2. Entry of Plaintiff upon Depositing Value
with Authorized Government Depositary. – Upon the
filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and
after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall
have the right to take or enter upon the possession of
the real property involved if he deposits with the
authorized government depositary an amount
equivalent to the assessed value of the property for
purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject
to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in
money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the
deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government
bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on
demand to the authorized government depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be
provisionally ascertained and the amount to be
deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.
After such deposit is made the court shall order the
sheriff or other proper officer to forthwith place the
plaintiff in possession of the property involved and
promptly submit a report thereof to the court with
service of copies to the parties.
PENDENCY OF EXPROPRIATION
COMPLAINT
National Power Corporation vs. Socorro T. Posada,
et al
G.R. No. 191945 [March 11, 2015]
SC: The first phase of expropriation commences with
the filing of the complaint. It ends with the order of
the trial court to proceed with expropriation and
determination of just compensation. During the
pendency of the complaint before the trial court, the
state may already enter and possess the property
subject to the guidelines in Rule 67 of the Rules of
Court.
REQUISITES OF IMMEDIATE ENTRY IN
THE PREMISES SUBJECT OF
EXPROPRIATION
Municipality of Cordova vs. Pathfinder
Development Corporation, et al
G.R. 205544 [June 29, 2016]
SC: The requisites for authorizing immediate entry
are the filing of a complaint for expropriation
sufficient in form and substance, and the deposit of
the amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market
value of the property to be expropriated based on its
current tax declaration. Upon compliance with these
requirements, the petitioner in an expropriation case
is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right
and the issuance of the writ becomes ministerial.
IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION TO THE LANDOWNER
OF 100% VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
BASED ON ZONAL VALUE IN CASE OF
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT OF
GOVERNMENT
• Section 4 of R.A. 8974, unlike Rule 67, Section 2 of
the Rules of Court, requires immediate payment to
the landowner 100% of the value of the property
based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the
BIR. It is the BIR, not the court, which determines
the zonal value. The law also requires the immediate
payment of the value of the improvements and/or
structures on the land before the trial court can issue
the writ of possession.
DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS
[SECTION 3, RULE 67]
Sec. 3. Defenses and Objections. – If a defendant has
no objection or defense to the action or the taking of
his property, he may file and serve a notice of
appearance and a manifestation to that effect,
specifically designating or identifying the property in
which he claims to be interested, within the time
stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be
entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the
same.
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the
allegations in the complaint, or any objection or
defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve
his answer within the time stated in the summons.
The answer shall specifically designate or identify the
property in which he claims to have an interest, state
the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and
adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of
his property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-
party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the
answer or any subsequent pleading.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so
alleged but the court, in the interest of justice, may
permit amendments to the answer to be made not
later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof.
However, at the trial of the issue of just
compensation, whether or not a defendant has
previously appeared or answered, he may present
evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be
paid for his property, and he may share in the
distribution of the award.
Q: Can a counterclaim, cross claim or third-party
complaint be filed in an action for expropriation?
A: No, by express provision of Section 3 which states
that, “No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer
or any subsequent pleading.”
Q: What are the effects of failure of the defendant
to raise defenses and objections?
A: 1. A defendant waives all defenses and objections
not so alleged; and
2. The court may, in the interest of justice, may
permit amendments to the answer to be made not
later than 10 days from the filing thereof.
Q: What are the remedies of the defendant as
regards the issue of just compensation?
A: 1. Present evidence as to the amount of the
compensation to be paid for his property; and
2. He may share in the distribution of the award.
ORDER OF EXPROPRIATION
[SECTION 4, RULE 67]
Sec. 4. Order of Expropriation. – If the objections to
and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to
expropriate the property are overruled, or when no
party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the
court may issue an order of expropriation declaring
that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
property sought to be expropriated, for the public use
or purpose described in the complaint, upon the
payment of just compensation to be determined as of
the date of the taking of the property or the filing of
the complaint, whichever came first.
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.
After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall
not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the
proceeding except on such terms as the court deems
just and equitable.
REMEDY FROM A FINAL ORDER OF
EXPROPRIATION
Q: What is the remedy of the defendant in case of
issuance of a final order of expropriation?
A: A final order sustaining the right to expropriate
the property may be appealed by any party aggrieved
thereby.
Q: What are the orders or judgment which can be
appealed in expropriation proceedings?
A: 1. A final order sustaining the right to expropriate
the property
2. Order of determination of just compensation
3. Judgment in expropriation proceeding
Q: What is the effect of the filing of an appeal
from the final order of expropriation?
A: Such appeal shall NOT prevent the court from
determining the just compensation to be paid.
STAGES OF EXPROPRIATION
PROCEEDINGS
The exercise by the State of its inherent power of
eminent domain comes in two (2) stages:
1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to
exercise the power of eminent domain and the
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts
involved in the suit.
- At this stage, the trial court resolves questions
like whether the expropriator has the power of
eminent domain, whether the use of the property is
public, whether the taking is necessary, and, should
there be conditions precedent for the exercise of the
power, whether they have been complied with.
2. Determination by the court of the just
compensation for the property sought to be taken.
- The trial court shall determine the just
compensation.
WHEN JUST COMPENSATION TO BE
ASCERTAINED
B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 89980 [December 14, 1992]
SC: Just compensation is to be ascertained as of the
time of the taking, which usually coincides with the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
Where the institution of the action precedes entry into
the property, the just compensation is to be
ascertained as of the time of the filing of the
complaint.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Vda. de Castellvi
157 Phil. 329
SC: When the taking of the property coincides with
the commencement of the expropriation proceedings,
or takes place subsequent to the filing of the
complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation
should be determined as of the date of the filing of
the complaint.
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Judicial review of the exercise of the power of
eminent domain is limited to the following areas of
concern:
a. The adequacy of the compensation
b. The necessity of the taking; and
c. The public use character of the purpose of
the taking.
EXPROPRIATION FOR NATIONAL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Note: Expropriation proceedings for national
infrastructure projects are governed by Rule 67 of the
Rules of Court and Republic Act 8974.
• RA 8974 is the Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of
Right of Way, Site or Location for National
Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other
Purposes.
DETERMINATION OF JUST
COMPENSATION BY THE
COMMISSIONER
[SECTION 5, RULE 67]
Sec. 5. Ascertainment of Compensation. – Upon the
rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall
appoint not more than three (3) competent and
disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain
and report to the court the just compensation for the
property sought to be taken. The order of
appointment shall designate the time and place of the
first session of the hearing to be held by the
commissioners and specify the time within which
their report shall be submitted to the court.
Copies of the order shall be served on the parties.
Objections to the appointment of any of the
commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten
(10) days from service, and shall be resolved within
thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall have
received copies of the objections.
Just compensation
Q: What is Just Compensation?
A: It is the sum equivalent to the market value of the
property, broadly described as the price fixed by the
seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course
of legal action and competition, or the fair market
value of the property as between the one who
receives and the one who desires to sell it, it being
fixed at the time of the actual taking by the
government.
• The true measure of just compensation is not the
taker’s gain but the owner’s loss.
RULE ON IMPOSITION OF INTEREST
ON JUST COMPENSATION
Rule: The imposition of interest on just
compensation is illegal.
Exception: When there is delay on the part of the
government for its payment.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Hernando T.
Chico
G.R. No. 168453 [March 13, 2009]
SC: Interest on just compensation is assessed only in
case of delay in payment thereof, a fact which must
be adequately proved.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Jesus Mupas
G.R. No. 181892 [April 19, 2016]
SC: Applying Section 10 of Rule 67, we held in our
Decision that the condemnor incurs delay if it does
not pay the property owner the full amount of just
compensation on the date of taking.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER
[SECTION 6, RULE 67]
Sec. 6. Proceedings by Commissioners. – Before
entering upon the performance of their duties, the
commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that
they will faithfully perform their duties as
commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court
with the other proceedings in the case. Evidence may
be introduced by either party before the
commissioners who are authorized to administer
oaths on hearings before them, and the
commissioners shall, unless the parties consent to the
contrary, after due notice to the parties to attend,
view and examine the property sought to be
expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure
the same, after which either party may, by himself or
counsel, argue the case. The commissioners shall
assess the consequential damages to the property not
taken and deduct from such consequential damages
the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner
from the public use or purpose of the property taken,
the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the
carrying on of the business of the corporation or
person taking the property. But in no case shall the
consequential benefits assessed exceed the
consequential damages assessed, or the owner be
deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
REPORT BY COMMISSIONERS AND
RENDITION OF JUDGMENT
[SECTION 7, RULE 67]
Sec. 7. Report by Commissioners and Judgment
thereupon. – The court may order the commissioners
to report when any particular portion of the real estate
shall have been passed upon by them, and may render
judgment upon such partial report, and direct the
commissioners to proceed with their work as to
subsequent portions of the property sought to be
expropriated, and may from time to time to deal with
such property. The commissioners shall make a full
and accurate report to the court of all their
proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be
effectual until the court shall have accepted their
report and rendered judgment in accordance with
their recommendations. Except as otherwise
expressly ordered by the court, such report shall be
filed within sixty (60) days from the date the
commissioners were notified of their appointment,
which time may be extended in the discretion of the
court. Upon filing of such report, the clerk of the
court shall serve copies thereof on all interested
parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10)
days within which to file objections to the findings of
the report, if they so desire.
ACTION UPON COMMISSIONER’S
REPORT
[SECTION 8, RULE 67]
Sec. 8. Action upon Commissioner’s Report. – Upon
the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred
to in the preceding section, or even before the
expiration of such period but after all the interested
parties have filed their objections to the report or
their statement of agreement therewith, the court
may, after hearing, accept the report and render
judgment in accordance therewith; or, for cause
shown, it may recommit the same to the
commissioners for further report of facts; or it may
set aside the report and appoint new commissioners;
or it may accept the report in part and reject it in part;
and it may make such order or render such judgment
as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to
the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the
defendant just compensation for the property so
taken.
RULE IN CASE OF UNCERTAIN
OWNERSHIP OR CONFLICTING CLAIMS
[SECTION 9, RULE 67]
Sec. 9. Uncertain Ownership; Conflicting Claims. –
If the ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or
there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the
court may order any sum or sums awarded as
compensation for the property to be paid to the court
for the benefit of the person adjudged in the same
proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment
shall require the payment of the sum or sums
awarded to either the defendant or the court before
the plaintiff can enter upon the property, or retain it
for the public use or purpose if entry has already been
made.
Note: The court can entertain conflicting claims of
ownership and declare the rightful owner.
RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF AFTER
JUDGMENT AND PAYMENT
[SECTION 10, RULE 67]
Sec. 10. Rights of the Plaintiff After Judgment and
Payment. – Upon payment by the plaintiff to the
defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment,
with legal interest thereon from the taking of the
possession of the property, or after tender to him of
the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the
plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the
property expropriated and appropriate it for the
public use or purpose defined in the judgment, or to
retain it should he have taken immediate possession
thereof under the provisions of section 2 hereof. If
the defendant and his counsel absent themselves from
the court, or decline to receive the amount tendered,
the same shall be ordered to be deposited in court and
such deposit shall have the same effect as actual
payment thereof to the defendant or the person
ultimately adjudged entitled thereto.
EFFECT OF APPEAL
[SECTION 11, RULE 67]
Sec. 11. Entry not delayed by Appeal; Effect of
Reversal. - The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the
property of the defendant and appropriate the same
for public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an
appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate court
determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation,
judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional
Trial Court to forthwith enforce the restoration to the
defendant of the possession of the property, and to
determine the damages which the defendant sustained
and may recover by reason of the possession taken by
the plaintiff.
Note: The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the
property of the defendant and appropriate the same to
public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an
appeal from judgment.
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION IN
EMINENT DOMAIN CASES
National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Antonia
Rabie
G.R. No. 210218 [August 17, 2016]
SC: The Court rules that discretionary execution of
judgments pending appeal under Section 2 (a) of Rule
39 does not apply to eminent domain proceedings.
The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the order granting execution pending appeal.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised
for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the
benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is a payment of just compensation.
4. A valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner of the
property sought to be expropriated, but said
offer was not accepted (Sps. Antonio and Fe
Yusay vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 156684 (April
6, 2011)

COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS

[SECTION 12, RULE 67]
Sec. 12. Costs, by whom paid. – The fees of the
commissioners shall be taxed as part of the costs of
the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival
claimants litigating their claims, shall be paid by the
plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of
the property and the judgment is affirmed, in which
event the costs of the appeal shall be paid by the
owner.

RECORDING OF THE JUDGMENT AND

ITS EFFECT
[SECTION 13, RULE 67]
Sec. 13. Recording Judgment and its Effect. – The
judgment entered in expropriation proceedings shall
state definitely, by an adequate description, the
particular property or interest therein expropriated,
and the nature of the public use or purpose for which
it is expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a
certified copy of such judgment shall be recorded in
the registry of deeds of the place in which the
property is situated, and its effect shall be to vest in
the plaintiff the title to the real estate so described for
such public use or purpose.

POWER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

TO EXPROPRIATE
• The power of eminent domain is lodged in the
legislative branch of the government, which may
delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other public
entities and public utilities. An LGU may therefore
exercise the power to expropriate private property
only when authorized by Congress and subject to the
latter’s control and restraints. The following essential
requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise
the power of eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local
legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise
the power of eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings over a particular
private property.
 FORECLOSURE OF REAL
ESTATE MORTGAGE
[RULE 68]
DEFINITION OF FORECLOSURE
Foreclosure – The equitable action by which a
mortgagee or a pledgee or any other lien holder cuts
off the right of the debtor whose property is pledged,
because of default in meeting the obligation.
• The judgment in a foreclosure creates a right to
have the property sold at a public sale and the
proceeds used to pay the debt as well as the interest
and expenses. If not enough to satisfy the debt, the
mortgagee is entitled to a personal judgment for the
deficiency.
NATURE OF AN ACTION FOR
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE
a. An action for foreclosure of real estate
mortgage is an action quasi in rem since it is
not only directed against a particular person,
but it constitutes a lien on the property of the
defendant; and
b. It is a real action since it involves an interest
over a real property.
CLASSIFICATION OF FORECLOSURE
OF MORTGAGE
a. Judicial Foreclosure - a proceeding for
judicial foreclosure of mortgage is an action
quasi in rem based on a personal claim
sought to be enforced against a specific
property of the defendant. Its purpose is to
have the property seized and sold by court
order to the end that the proceeds thereof be
applied to the payment of plaintiff’s claim
(Ocampo vs. Domalanta, 20 SCRA 1136)
b. Extrajudicial Foreclosure – In case of an
extrajudicial foreclosure of a real mortgage,
the possession of the property sold may be
given to the purchaser by the sheriff after the
period of redemption had expired, unless a
third person actually holding the property
adversely to the mortgagor (Sec. 6, Act No.
3135, Secs. 29-31 and Sec. 35, Revised
Rules of Court) An ordinary action for the
recovery of possession is not necessary (IFC
Service Leasing and Acceptance
Corporation vs. Nera, 195 SCRA 181)
JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF REAL
ESTATE MORTGAGE
A. Jurisdiction
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over an Action
for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage?
A: It shall be the Regional Trial Court or the MTC
based on the assessed value of the property as
provided for under Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129.
B. Venue
Q: Where is the venue of an action for foreclosure
of real estate mortgage?
A: An action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage
is a real action involving an interest over a real
property, and therefore, venue lies where the real
property is located or any portion thereof is situated.
COMMENCEMENT OF FORECLOSURE
OF MORTGAGE
[SECTION 1, RULE 68]
Sec. 1. Complaint in Action for Foreclosure. – In an
action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other
encumbrance upon a real estate, the complaint shall
set forth the date and due execution of the mortgage;
its assignments, if any; the names and residences of
the mortgagor and the mortgagee; a description of the
mortgaged property; a statement of the date of the
note or other documentary evidence of the obligation
secured by the mortgage, the amount claimed to be
unpaid thereon; and the names and residences of all
persons having or claiming an interest in the property
subordinate in right to that of the holder of the
mortgage, all of whom shall be made defendants in
the action.
COMMENCEMENT OF FORECLOSURE
OF MORTGAGE
Personal Notice to the Mortgagor Not Necessary
Resort Hotels Corporation vs. Development Bank of
the Philippines, et al
G.R. No. 180439 [December 23, 2009]
SC: Personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessary
for the validity of the foreclosure proceedings.
JUDGMENT ON FORECLOSURE FOR
PAYMENT OR SALE
[SECTION 2, RULE 68]
Sec. 2. Judgment on Foreclosure for Payment or
Sale. – If upon the trial in such action the court shall
find the facts set forth in the complaint to be true, it
shall ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff upon
the mortgage debt or obligation, including interest
and other charges as approved by the court, and costs,
and shall render judgment for the sum so found due
and order that the same be paid to the court or to the
judgment obligee within a period of not less than
ninety (90) days nor more than one hundred twenty
(120) days from the entry of judgment, and that in
default of such payment the property shall be sold at
public auction to satisfy the judgment.
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION VS. EQUITY
OF REDEMPTION
1. The right of redemption exists in
extrajudicial foreclosure; while equity of
redemption exists only in judicial
foreclosure.
2. In extrajudicial foreclosure, the mortgagor
(or his successor-in-interest) may exercise
his right of redemption within one year from
the registration of the sale in the Office of
the Registry of Deeds; while in judicial
foreclosure, the mortgagor (or his successor-
in-interest) may exercise his equity of
redemption during the period of not less than
90 days nor more than 120 days from entry
of judgment of foreclosure or even after the
foreclosure sale but before the judicial
confirmation of the same.
RULE ON RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
Gen. Rule: There is no right of redemption in
judicial foreclosure of mortgage
Exception: Where the mortgagee is the Philippine
National Bank or any banking institution.
Heirs of Estelita Burgos-Lipat vs. Heirs of Eugenio
Trinidad
G.R. No. 185644 [March 2, 2010]
SC: The period of redemption is not tolled by the
filing of a complaint or petition for annulment of the
mortgage and foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to
the said proceedings.
SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY
[SECTION 3, RULE 68]
Sec. 3. Sale of Mortgaged Property; Effect. – When
the defendant, after being directed to do as provided
in the next preceding section, fails to pay the amount
of the judgment within the period specified therein,
the court, upon motion, shall order the property to be
sold in the manner and under the provisions of Rule
39 and other regulations governing sales of real estate
under execution. Such sale shall not affect the rights
of persons holding prior encumbrances upon the
property or a part thereof, and when confirmed by an
order the court, also upon motion, it shall operate to
divest the rights in the property of all the parties to
the action and to vest their rights in the purchaser,
subject to such rights of redemption as may be
allowed by law.
Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon
the expiration of the period of redemption when
allowed by law, the purchaser at the auction sale or
last redemptioner, if any, shall be entitled to the
possession of the property unless a third party is
actually holding the same adversely to the judgment
obligor. The said purchaser or last redemptioner may
secure a writ of possession, upon motion, from the
court which ordered the foreclosure.
RIGHTS OF THE PURCHASER IN AN
AUCTION SALE
Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon
the expiration of the period of redemption when
allowed by law, the purchaser at the auction sale or
last redemptioner, if any, shall be:
1. Entitled to the possession of the property
unless a third party is actually holding the
same adversely to the judgment obligor;
2. The said purchaser or last redemptioner may
secure a writ of possession, upon motion,
from the court which ordered the
foreclosure.
Planters Development Bank vs. James Ng, et al
G.R. No. 187556 [May 5, 2010]
SC: Questions regarding the validity of mortgage or
its foreclosure as well as the sale of the property
covered by the mortgage cannot be raised as a ground
to deny the issuance of writ of possession.
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF THE
SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY
[SECTION 4, RULE 68]
Sec. 4. Disposition of Proceeds of Sale. – The
amount realized from the foreclosure sale of the
mortgaged property shall, after deducting the costs of
the sale, be paid to the person foreclosing the
mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or
residue, after paying off the mortgage debt due, the
same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the
order of their priority, to be ascertained by the court
or if there be no such encumbrancers or there be a
balance or residue after payment to them, then to the
mortgagor or his duly authorized agent, or to person
entitled to it.
PROCEDURE OF SALE IN CASE DEBT IS
NOT ALL DUE
[SECTION 5, RULE 68]
Sec. 5. How Sale to Proceed in case the Debt is Not
All Due. – If the debt for which the mortgage or
encumbrance was held is not all due as provided in
the judgment, as soon as a sufficient portion of the
property has been sold to pay the total amount and
the costs due, the sale shall be terminated; and
afterwards, as often as more becomes due for
principal or interest and other valid charges, the court
may, on motion, order more to be sold. But if the
property cannot be sold in portions without prejudice
to the parties, the whole shall be ordered to be sold in
the first instance, and the entire debt and costs shall
be paid, if the proceeds of the sale be sufficient
therefor, there being a rebate of interest where such
rebate is proper.
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT
[SECTION 6, RULE 68]
Sec. 6. Deficiency Judgment. – If upon the sale of
any real property as provided in the next preceding
section there be a balance due to the plaintiff after
applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon
motion, shall render judgment against the defendant
for any such balance for which, by the record of the
case, he may be personally liable to the plaintiff,
upon which execution may issue immediately if the
balance is all due at the time of rendition of the
judgment; otherwise, the plaintiff shall be entitled to
execution at such time as the balance remaining
becomes due under the terms of the original contract,
which time shall be stated in the judgment.
REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENT
[SECTION 7, RULE 68]
Sec. 7. Registration. – A certified copy of the final
order of the court confirming the sale shall be
registered in the registry of deeds. If no right of
redemption exists, the certificate of title in the name
of the mortgagor shall be cancelled, and a new one
issued in the name of the purchaser.
Where a right of redemption exists, the certificate of
title in the name of the mortgagor shall not be
cancelled, but the certificate of sale and the order
confirming the sale shall be registered and a brief
memorandum thereof made by the registrar of deeds
upon the certificate of title. In the event the property
is redeemed, the deed of redemption shall be
registered with the registry of deeds, and a brief
memorandum thereof shall be made by the registrar
of deeds on said certificate of title.
If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of sale
executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser at
the foreclosure sale shall be registered with the
registry of deeds; whereupon the certificate of title in
the name of the mortgagor shall be cancelled and a
new one issued in the name of the purchaser.
EFFECTS ON THE REGISTRATION OF
THE JUDGMENT IF THERE IS A RIGHT
OF REDEMPTION EXISTING
Where a right of redemption exists, it has the
following effects on the registration of judgment:
1. The certificate of title in the name of the
mortgagor shall be cancelled;
2. The certificate of sale and the order
confirming the sale shall be registered and a
brief memorandum thereof made by the
registrar of deeds upon the certificate of
sale;
3. In the event the property is redeemed, the
deed of redemption shall be registered with
the registry of deeds, and a brief
memorandum thereof shall be made by the
registrar of deeds on said certificate of title.
EFFECT IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT
REDEEMED
If the property is not redeemed, it has the following
effects:
1. A final deed of sale shall be executed by the
sheriff in favor of the purchaser at the
foreclosure sale;
2. The final deed of sale shall be registered
with the registry of deeds;
3. The certificate of title in the name of the
mortgagor shall be cancelled and a new one
issued in the name of the purchaser.
APPLICABILITY OF OTHER
PROVISIONS
[SECTION 8, RULE 68]
Sec. 8. Applicability of Other Provisions. – The
provisions of Sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall
be applicable to the judicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgages under this Rule insofar as the former are
not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the
provisions of the latter.
• Sec. 31, Rule 39: Manner of Using Premises
Pending Redemption; Waste Restrained.
• Sec. 32, Rule 39: Rents, Earning and Income of the
Property Pending Redemption.
• Sec. 34, Rule 39: Recovery of Price if Sale Not
Effective

REMEDIES OF THE MORTGAGEE IN
CASE OF DEFAULT OF THE
MORTGAGOR/WAIVER OF THE RIGHT
TO FORECLOSE
The remedies available to the mortgagee in case of
default of the mortgagor in his obligation are as
follows:
1. Judicial or Extrajudicial Foreclosure of
Mortgage; or
2. File an ordinary action to collect the debt.
In which case he will be deemed to have
waived his right to proceed against the
property in foreclosure proceeding (Caltex
Philippines, Inc. vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
74730, August 25, 1989)
PARTITION
[RULE 69]
DEFINITION AND CONCEPT OF
PARTITION
Partition – is the separation, division and assignment
of a thing held in common among those whom it may
belong (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 456 SCRA 165)
Nature of an action for Partition
• It is an action quasi in rem since it is not only
directed against a particular person, but it constitute a
lien on the property subject matter of the action with
the intention of excluding the interest of the
defendant therein.
Classes of Partition
a. Voluntary Partition – is a division of the
property by the act of the parties themselves;
b. Compulsory Partition – is a partition by
judicial proceedings at the instance of one or
more of the co-tenants without regard to the
wishes of the other co-tenants.
RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF
PARTITION
Rationale of Partition of Properties
Co-ownership or community of property (Art. 484) is
not favored by the Civil Code. Upon the death of the
testators, all the heirs become co-owners of the
hereditary estate, and a co-owner has the right to
demand the division or partition thereof at any time
(Art. 494), although an agreement among them for a
specified period not exceeding ten (10) years is valid,
which may be extended by a new agreement.
Purpose of Partition
To separate, divide and assign a thing held in
common among those whom it may belong (Gabila
vs. Perez, et al, G.R. No. L-29542, January 27, 1989)
JURISDICTION
A. If the Subject Matter is a Personal Property
1. If the value exceeds P300,000.00 outside of
Metro Manila or P400,000.00 within Metro
Manila – RTC
2. If value does not exceed P300,000.00
outside Metro Manila or P400,000.00 within
Metro Manila – MTC
B. If the Subject Matter is a Real Property
1. If the assessed value of the real property
exceeds P20,000.00 outside Metro Manila or
P50,000.00 within Metro Manila – RTC
2. If the assessed value of the real property
does not exceed P20,000.00 outside of
Metro Manila or P50,000.00 within Metro
Manila - MTC
Complaint
[section 1, rule 69]
Sec. 1. Complaint in Action for Partition of Real
Estate. – A person having the right to compel the
partition of real estate may do so as provided in this
Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and
extent of his title and an adequate description of the
real estate of which partition is demanded and joining
as defendants all other persons interested in the
property.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Garcia de Lara vs. Gonzales de Lara
24 Phil. 294
SC: The property sought to be divided should be
adequately described in the complaint; but
insufficiency in that respect may be cured at the trial
and therefore objection thereto should be made not
after the trial.
ALL CO-OWNERS MUST BE IMPLEADED
Reyes vs. Cordero
46 Phil. 658
SC: All co-owners must be joined. Accordingly, an
action will not lie without the joinder of all co-
owners and other persons having interest in the
property. All the co-owners therefore, are
indispensable parties.
Albano vs. Agtarap
22 Phil. 345
SC: Where one of the co-owners has died, the action
for partition may be brought by the administrator or
his estate.
Bicarme vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-51914 [June 6, 1990]
SC: An action for partition, as long as the co-
ownership still exists, will lie at anytime and does not
prescribe.
JURISPRUDENCE
Action for Partition Will Lie as long as the Co-
ownership Exists
Bicarme vs. Court of Appeals, et al
G.R. No. L-51914 [June 6, 1990]
SC: It is a settled rule that an action for partition, as
long as the co-ownership still exist will lie anytime
and does not prescribe.
Heirs of Bartolome Infante and Juliana Infante vs.
CA
G.R. No. 77202 [June 22, 1988]
SC: Action for partition is imprescriptible for as long
as the co-owners expressly or impliedly recognize the
co-ownership.
Prescription Lies if there is a Repudiation of Co-
ownership
Heirs of Restar vs. Heirs of Cichon
475 SCRA 731
SC: But while the action to demand partition of a co-
owned property does not prescribe, a co-owner may
acquire ownership thereof by prescription where
there exists a clear repudiation of the co-ownership
and the co-owners are apprised of the claim adverse
and exclusive ownership.
Requirements for the Claim of Prescription
Cortes vs. Oliva
33 Phil. 480
SC: In order that the defendant co-owners may claim
prescription founded on adverse possession, it is
indispensable: (a) that they should have performed
unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an
ouster of the other co-owners; (b) that the other co-
owners were, or should have been, appraised of such
positive acts of repudiation; and (c) that the evidence
thereon should be clear and conclusive.
Acquisition of Exclusive Title on the Property in
Good Faith, Prescription Lies
De Castro vs. Echarri
20 Phil. 23
SC: But prescription also lies where one co-owner
acquires in good faith a clear exclusive title on the
property and possess the same exclusively for the
prescriptive period without knowing that others may
have a right to share therein.
Allegation in the Complaint asserting Exclusive
Property-Partition is not Available
Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
412 SCRA 282
SC: When the allegations in the complaint allege that
the plaintiff asserts exclusive ownership of the
property sought to be partitioned, the nature of the
action is NOT one for partition. It is an action for the
recovery of property.
Order of partition and agreement to partition
[section 2, rule 69]
Sec. 2. Order for Partition, and Partition by
Agreement thereunder. – If after the trial the court
finds that the plaintiff has the right thereto, it shall
order the partition of the real estate among all the
parties in interest. Thereupon the parties may, if they
are able to agree, make the partition among
themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and
the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon
by all the parties, and such partition, together with the
order of the court confirming the same, shall be
recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which
the property is situated.
A final order decreeing partition and accounting may
be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.
PARTITION
Appointment of Commissioner Not Necessary if
the Parties Agree to Partition
Tell vs. Tell
48 Phil. 70
SC: If the parties agree upon a partition, the
appointment of commissioners is unnecessary; all
that is left for the court to do is to confirm the
instrument of partition presented by the parties. If
they fail to agree, the court shall proceed to appoint
commissioners is a matter of discretion and will not
be disturbed on appeal unless abuse thereof is shown.
Remedy of the Aggrieved Party in an Action for
Partition
• A final order decreeing partition and accounting
may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.
MULTIPLE APPEALS IN PARTITION
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Court of
Appeals
G.R. No. 111324 [July 5, 1996]
SC: Multiple appeals are allowed in special
proceedings, in actions for recovery of property with
accounting, in actions for partition of property with
accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent
domain and foreclosure of mortgage. The rationale
behind allowing more than one appeal in the same
case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the
event that separate and distinct issue is resolved by
the court and held to be final.
STAGES IN AN ACTION FOR PARTITION
There are two (2) stages in an action for partition,
namely:
1. First Stage: Determination of the propriety of
partition.
• This involves the determination of whether the
subject property is owned in common and whether all
the co-owners are made parties in the case. The order
may also require an accounting. This order of
partition and accounting is appealable (Miranda vs.
Court of Appeals, June 18, 1976).
2. Second Stage: The actual partitioning of the
subject property.
• If the parties are unable to agree upon the
partition, the partition shall be done for the parties
with the assistance of not more than three
commissioners. This is also a complete proceeding
and the order or decision is appealable.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS
[SECTION 3, RULE 69]
Sec. 3. Commissioners to Make Partition When
Parties Fail to Agree. – If the parties are unable to
agree upon the partition, the court shall appoint not
more than three (3) competent and disinterested
persons as commissioners to make the partition,
commanding them to set off to the plaintiff and to
each party in interest such part and proportion of the
property as the court shall direct.
Duties of the Commissioners (Section 4, Rule 69)
1. View and examine the real estate, after due
notice to the parties to attend at such view
and examination;
2. Shall hear the parties as to their preference
in the portion of the property to be set apart
to them and the comparative value thereof;
and
3. Shall set apart the same to the parties in lots
or parcels as will be most advantageous and
equitable, having due regard to the
improvements, situation and quality of the
different parts thereof.
ASSIGNMENT OR SALE OF REAL
ESTATE BY THE COMMISSIONER
[SECTION 5, RULE 69]
Sec. 5. Assignment or Sale of Real Estate by
Commissioners. – When it is made to appear that the
real estate, or a portion thereof, cannot be divided
without prejudice to the interests of the parties, the
court may order it assigned to one of the parties
willing to take the same, provided, he pays to the
other parties such amounts as the commissioners
deem equitable, unless one of the interested parties
asks that the property be sold instead of being so
assigned, in which case the court shall order the
commissioners to sell the real estate at public sale
under such conditions and within such time as the
court may determine.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER AND
CONFIRMATION
[SECTION 6, RULE 69]
Sec. 6. Report of Commissioners; Proceedings Not
Binding Until Confirmed. – The commissioners shall
make a full and accurate report to the court of all
their proceedings as to the partition, or the
assignment of real estate to one of the parties, or the
sale of the same. Upon the filing of such report, the
clerk of court shall serve copies thereof on all the
interested parties with notice that they are allowed ten such other party from the real estate in question, and
(10) days within which to file objections to the the judgment shall include an allowance for such
findings of the report, if they so desire. No rents and profits.
proceeding had before or conducted by the
commissioners shall pass the title to the property or
bind the parties until the court shall have accepted the
report of the commissioners and rendered judgment
thereon.

CONTENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS’

REPORT
The report of the commissioners to the court must
contain the following:
1. The partition made;
2. The assignment of real estate to one of the
parties; or
3. The sale of the real estate
ACTION OF THE COURT ON THE
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS
[SECTION 7, RULE 69]
Sec. 7. Action of the Court Upon Commissioners’
Report. – Upon the expiration if the period of ten
(10) days referred to in the preceding section, or even
before the expiration of such period but after the
interested parties have filed their objections to the
report or their statement of agreement therewith, the
court may, upon hearing, accept the report and render
judgment in accordance therewith; or, for cause
shown, recommit the same to the commissioners for
further report of facts; or set aside the report and
appoint new commissioners; or accept the report in
part and reject it in part; and may make such order
and render such judgment as shall effectuate a fair
and just partition of the real estate, or of its value, if
assigned or sold as above provided, between the
several owners thereof.
MANNER OF PARTITION
Vasquez Arias & Colet vs. Varquez Arias and Arias
58 Phil. 878
SC: In an action for partition, the properties should
be partitioned in a manner that would be most
advantageous and equitable to the parties, having due
regard to the improvements, situation and quality of
the different parts of the properties subject of the
partition.
ACCOUNTING OF RENTS AND PROFITS
OF THE PROPERTY
[SECTION 8, RULE 69]
Sec. 8. Accounting for Rent and Profits in Action
for Partition. – In an action for partition in
accordance with this Rule, a party shall recover from
another his just share of rents and profits received by
JUDGMENT AND ITS EFFECT
[SECTION 11, RULE 69]
Sec. 11. The Judgment and its Effect; Copy to be
Recorded in Registry of Deeds. – If actual partition
of property is made, the judgment shall state
definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate
description, the particular portion of the real estate
assigned to each party, and the effect of the judgment
shall be to vest in each party to the action in severalty
the portion of the real estate assigned to him. If the
whole property is assigned to one of the parties upon
his paying to the others the sum or sums ordered by
the court, the judgment shall state the fact of such
payment and of the assignment of the real estate to
the party making the payment, and the effect of the
judgment shall be to vest in the party making the
payment the whole of the real estate free from any
interest on the part of the other parties to the action.
If the property is sold and the sale confirmed by the
court, the judgment shall state the name of the
purchaser or purchasers and a definite description of
the parcels of real estate sold to each purchaser, and
the effect of the judgment shall be to vest the real
estate in the purchaser or purchasers making the
payment or payments, free from the claims of any of
the parties to the action. A certified copy of the
judgment shall in either case be recorded in the
registry of deeds of the place in which the real estate
is situated, and the expenses of such recording shall
be taxed as part of the costs of the action.
DEFECTS IN THE JUDGMENT
Tomias, et al vs. Tomias, et al
G.R. No. L-3004 [May 30, 1951]
SC: The judgment in a partition case may not be
voided on the mere allegation that some of the
parcels of land partitioned were the property of
persons not made parties to the suit when none of
those persons has come to the court to protest. The
judgment may be maintained without prejudice to the
proper action which the supposedly omitted parties
may bring against the legitimate heirs.

RIGHTS OF THE OTHER PERSONS

[SECTION 12, RULE 69]
Sec. 12. Neither Paramount Rights nor Amicable
Partition Affected by this Rule. – Nothing in this
Rule contained shall be construed so as to prejudice,
defeat, or destroy the right or title of any person
claiming the real estate involved by title under any
other person, or by title paramount to the title of the
parties among whom the partition may have been
made; nor so as to restrict or prevent persons holding
real estate jointly or in common from making an
amicable partition thereof by agreement and suitable
instruments of conveyance without recourse to an
action.

PARTITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY

[SECTION 13, RULE 69]
Sec. 13. Partition of Personal Property. – The
provisions of this Rule shall apply to partitions of
estates composed of personal property, or of both real
and personal property, in so far as the same may be
applicable.

WHEN PARTITION NOT AVAILABLE

There are instances when a co-owner may not
demand partition at any time as when:
1. There is an agreement among the co-owners
to keep the property undivided for a certain
period of time but not exceeding ten (10)
years (Art. 494, Civil Code)
2. When partition is prohibited by the donor or
testator for a period not exceeding twenty
(20) years (Art. 494, Civil Code)
3. When partition is prohibited by law (Art.
494, Civil Code)
4. When the property is not subject to a
physical division and to do so would render
it unserviceable for the use for which it is
intended (Art. 495, Civil Code)
5. When the condition imposed upon voluntary
heirs before they can demand partition has
not yet been fulfilled (Art. 1084, Civil Code)
 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND provide expeditious means to protect actual
possession or the right to possession of the property
UNLAWFUL DETAINER involved. The only question that the courts resolve in
[RULE 70] ejectment proceedings is: Who is entitled to the
physical possession of the premises, that is, to the
possession de facto and not the possession de jure.”
BASIC CONCEPT
• In cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the Bienvenido Barrientos vs. Mario Rapal
Rules on Summary Procedure and not the ordinary G.R. No. 169594 [July 20, 2011]
rules of procedure shall apply in the conduct of its SC: Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of
proceedings. Hearing is not necessary and the the parties, the court may pass upon the same in order
MeTC, MTC, MTCC or MCTC shall decide the case to determine who has the right to possess the
on the basis of position papers, affidavits, and other property. The adjudication is, however, merely
evidence submitted by the parties. provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action
between the same parties involving title to the
Ejectment – is a form of action by which possessory property.
titles to corporeal hereditaments may be tried and
possession obtained or which lies to regain the
NATURE OF THE ACTION IN RELATION
possession of real property, with damages for the
illegal detention. TO VENUE AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS
• For purposes of determining venue, it is a real
action since it is an action that involves an issue of
KINDS OF ACTION TO RECOVER
possession over a real property.
POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY • For purposes of determining jurisdiction and service
The three (3) actions available to recover possession of summons, it is an action in personam since it is
of real property are as follows: directed against a particular person, and the judgment
1. Accion Interdictal – comprises two (2) distinct is binding only against the parties.
causes of action, namely forcible entry
(detentacion) and unlawful detainer (desahuico). Forcible entry vs. unlawful detainer
In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical
FORCIBLE ENTRY UNLAWFUL
possession of real property by means of FISTS
DETAINER
whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally
The possession of the The possession of the
withholds possession after the expiration or
land by the defendant is defendant is inceptively
termination of his right to hold possession under
unlawful from the lawful but it becomes
any contract, express or implied. The two are
beginning as he illegal by reason of the
distinguished from each other in that in forcible
acquires possession termination of his right
entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal
thereof by force, to the possession of the
from the beginning, and that the issue is which
intimidation, strategy, property under his
party has prior de facto possession while in
threat or stealth. contract with the
unlawful detainer, possession of the defendant is
plaintiff.
originally legal but became illegal due to the
The law does not The plaintiff must first
expiration or termination of the right to possess.
require a previous make a demand which
2. Accion Publiciana – is the plenary action
demand for the is jurisdictional in
brought to recover the right of possession which
defendant to vacate the nature.
should be brought in the proper RTC when
premises.
dispossession has lasted for more than one (1)
year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to The plaintiff must The plaintiff need not
determine the better right of possession of realty prove that he was in have been in prior
independently of title. prior physical physical possession.
3. Accion Reinvindicatoria – is an action to possession of the
recover ownership also brought in the proper premises until he was
RTC in an ordinary civil proceeding. deprived thereof by the
defendant.

The one (1)-year period The period is counted

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
is generally counted from the date of last
• Ejectment cases – Forcible entry and unlawful
from the date of actual demand.
detainer are summary proceedings designed to
 entry on the land.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE IN
EJECTMENT CASES
• Actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of
the MeTC, MTC, MCTC or MCTC (Sec. 33, B.P.
Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. 7691).
• Under Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
“Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be
commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of
the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.”
Exception: Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive
venue thereof (Sec. 4, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court).
RULES GOVERNING FORCIBLE ENTRY
AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
The following rules shall govern forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases:
1. 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure; and
2. Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure
WHO MAY INSTITUTE EJECTMENT
CASE? WHEN?
[SECTION 1, RULE 70]
Sec. 1. Who May Institute Proceedings and When. –
Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
section, a person deprived of the possession of any
land or building by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or
other person against whom the possession of any land
or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration
or termination of the right to hold possession, by
virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one
(1) year after such unlawful deprivation or
withholding of possession, bring an action in the
proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or
persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
possession, or any person or persons claiming under
them, for the restitution of such possession, together
with damages and costs.
DETERMINATION OF CAUSE OF
ACTION
Sps. Rolando and Susie Golez vs. Heirs of Domingo
Bertudlo
G.R. No. 201289 [May 30, 2016]
SC: The law and jurisprudence leave no doubt that
what determines the cause of action is the nature of
the defendant’s entry into the land. If the entry is
illegal, then the cause of action against the intruder is
forcible entry. If, on the other hand, the entry is legal
but thereafter possession becomes illegal, the cause
of action is unlawful detainer. The latter must be
filed within one (1) year from the date of the last
demand.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Purpose
Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. vs. Sps. Ernesto and
Elizabeth Sison, et al
G.R. No. 191132 [January 27, 2016]
SC: The only purpose of an ejectment suit for
Forcible Entry (detentacion) is to protect the person
who had prior physical possession against another
who unlawfully entered the property and usurped his
possession. The suit is only filed against the
possessor(s) of the property at the commencement of
action, and not against one who does not in fact
occupy the land. To determine who should be made
a party-defendant, we simply look at who committed
the acts amounting to forcible entry and remains in
possession of the subject property
.
Allegation of Prior Physical Possession is
Required
Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court requires
that in actions for forcible entry, it must be alleged
that the complainant was deprived of the possession
of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth, and that the action was filed
anytime within one (1) year from the time the
unlawful deprivation of possession took place.
RECKONING OF ONE YEAR PERIOD IN
FORCIBLE ENTRY CASES
Hubert Nunez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc.
G.R. No. 180542 [April 12, 2010]
SC: The one (1)-year period within which to bring an
action for forcible entry is generally counted from the
date of actual entry on the land, except that when the
entry is through stealth, the one year period is
counted from the time the plaintiff learned thereof.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Unlawful Detainer – is a summary action for the
recovery of possession of real property. This action
may be filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
person from whom the possession of any land or
building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession by virtue
of any contract, express or implied.
Requisites
Fairland Knitcraft Corporation vs. Arturo Loo Po
G.R. No. 217694 [January 27, 2016]
SC: A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action
for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1)
initially, possession of the property by the defendant
was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff,
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon
notice by the plaintiff of possession, (3) thereafter,
the defendant remained in possession of the property,
and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof,
and (4) within one year from the last demand on
defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
MERE TOLERANCE OR PERMISSION TO
OCCUPY WITHOUT CONTRACT
Anita Monsterio-Pe vs. Sps. Tong
G.R. No. 151369 [March 23, 2011]
SC: A person who occupies the land of another at the
latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing
which a summary action for ejectment is the proper
remedy against them. The one year period within
which a complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed
should be counted from the date of demand, because
only upon the lapse of that period does the possession
become unlawful.
VALIDITY OF TITLE IN AN EJECTMENT
CASE
Rosa Delos Reyes vs. Sps. Odones
G.R. No. 178096 [March 23, 2011]
SC: The validity of a certificate of title cannot be
attacked in an action for ejectment.
DEMAND TO VACATE REQUIREMENT
Sec. 2. Lessor to Proceed Against Lessee Only After
Demand. – Unless otherwise stipulated, such action
by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand
to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and
to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving
written notice of such demand upon the person found
on the premises, or by posting such notice on the
premises if no person be found thereon, and the
lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days
in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of
buildings.
PLEADINGS ALLOWED IN FORCIBLE
ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Sec. 4. Pleadings Allowed. – The only pleadings
allowed to be filed are the complaint, compulsory
counterclaim and cross-claim pleaded in the answer,
and the answers thereto. All pleadings shall be
verified.
Note: Under Section 3, Rule 70, it is provided that
except in cases covered by agricultural tenancy laws
or when the law otherwise expressly provides, all
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are
governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
ACTION OF THE COURT ON THE
COMPLAINT
Sec. 6. Action on Complaint. – The court may, from
an examination of the allegations in the complaint
and such evidence as may be attached thereto,
dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for
the dismissal of a civil action which are apparent
therein. If no ground for dismissal is found, it shall
forthwith issue summons.
Duty of the Court Upon Receipt of the Complaint
• Under the Summary Rules, the first duty of the
judge upon filing of the case for ejectment is to
examine the allegations in the complaint and the
evidence appended to it, and to dismiss the case
outright on any of the grounds apparent for the
dismissal of the civil action.
FILING OF AN ANSWER
Sec. 6. Answer. – Within ten (10) days from service
of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded
therein shall be deemed waived, except lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Cross-claims and
compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the answer
shall be considered barred. The answer to
counterclaims or cross-claims shall be served and
filed within ten (10) days from service of the answer
in which they are pleaded.
FAILURE TO ANSWER
Sec. 7. Effect of Failure to Answer. – Should the
defendant fail to answer the complaint within the
period above provided, the court, motu proprio or on
motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may
be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint
and limited to what is prayed for therein. The court
may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages
and attorney’s fees claimed for being excessive or
otherwise unconscionable, without prejudice to the
applicability of Section 3 (c), Rule 9 if there are two
or more defendants.
Fairland Knitcraft Corporation vs. Arturo Loo Po
G.R. No. 217694 [January 27, 2016]
SC: If the defendant fails to answer the complaint
within the period provided, the court has no authority
to declare the defendant in default. Instead, the court,
motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall
render judgment as may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed
for.
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
Sec. 8. Preliminary Conference; Appearance of
Parties. – Not later than thirty (30) days after the last
answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall be
held. The provisions of Rule 18 on Pre-Trial shall be
applicable to the preliminary conference unless
inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the
preliminary conference shall be cause for the
dismissal of the complaint. The defendant who
appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled
to judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with
the next preceding section. All cross-claims shall be
dismissed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff
shall likewise be entitled to judgment in accordance
with the next preceding section. This procedure shall
not apply where one of two or more defendants sued
under a common cause of action who had pleaded a
common defense shall appear at the preliminary
conference.
No postponement of the preliminary conference shall
be granted except for highly meritorious grounds and
without prejudice to such sanctions as the court in the
exercise of sound discretion may impose on the
movant.
RECORD OF PRELIMINARY
CONFERENCE
Sec. 9. Record of Preliminary Conference. – Within
five (5) days after the termination of the preliminary
conference, the court shall issue an order stating the
matters taken up therein, including but not limited to:
1. Whether the parties have arrived at an
amicable settlement, and if so, the terms
thereof;
2. The stipulations or admissions entered into
by the parties;
3. Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and
the stipulations and admissions made by the
parties, judgment may be rendered without
the need of further proceedings, in which
event the judgment shall be rendered within
thirty (30) days from the issuance of the
order;
4. A clear specification of material facts which
remain controverted; and
5. Such other matters intended to expedite the
disposition of the case.
SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS AND
POSITION PAPERS
Sec. 10. Submission of Affidavits and Position
Papers. – Within ten (10) days from receipt of the
order mentioned in the next preceding section, the
parties shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses
and other evidence on the factual issues defined in
the order, together with their position papers setting
forth the law and the facts relied upon by them.
Effect of Failure to Submit Position Paper
Teraña vs. Desagun
G.R. No. 152131 [April 29, 2009]
SC: The failure of one party to submit his position
paper does NOT bar at all the MTC from issuing a
judgment on the ejectment complaint.
RENDITION OF JUDGMENT
Sec. 11. Period for Rendition of Judgment. – Within
thirty (30) days after receipt of the affidavits and
position papers, or the expiration of the period for
filing the same, the court shall render judgment.
However, should the court find it necessary to clarify
certain material facts, it may, during the said period,
issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified,
and require the parties to submit affidavits or other
evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days
from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be
rendered within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
last affidavit or the expiration of the period for filing
the same.
The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure
just to gain time for rendition of the judgment.
REFERRAL FOR CONCILIATION
Sec. 12. Referral for Conciliation. – Cases requiring
referral for conciliation, where there is no showing of
compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed
without prejudice, and may be revived only after that
requirement shall have been complied with.
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND
MOTIONS
Sec. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The
following petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be
allowed:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, or failure to comply with
Section 12;
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration
of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file
pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
6. Memoranda;
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order
issued by the court;
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply;
11. Third-party complaints;
12. Interventions
AFFIDAVITS
Sec. 14. Affidavits. – The affidavits required to be
submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of
direct personal knowledge of the affiants which are
admissible in evidence, and shall show their
competence to testify to the matters stated therein.
A violation of this requirement may subject the party
or the counsel who submits the same to disciplinary
action, and shall be cause to expunge the
inadmissible affidavit or portion thereof from the
record.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Sec. 15. Preliminary Injunction. – The court may
grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 58 hereof, to prevent the
defendant from committing further acts of
dispossession against the plaintiff.
A possessor deprived of his possession through
forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, within five
(5) days from the filing of the complaint, present a
motion in the action for forcible entry or unlawful
detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession.
The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30)
days from the filing thereof.
RESOLVING ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP
Sec. 16. Resolving Defense of Ownership. – When
the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the
issued of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.
Emerita Muñoz vs. Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr., et
al
G.R. No. 142676 [June 6, 2011]
SC: Title is never an issue in a forcible entry case,
the court should base its decision on who had prior
physical possession. The main thing to be proven in
an action for forcible entry is prior possession and
that the same was lost through force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, and stealth, so that it behooves the
court to restore possession regardless of titie or
ownership.
JUDGMENT
Sec. 17. Judgment. – If after trial the court finds that
the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall
render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the
restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as
arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation of the premises, attorney’s fees
and costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true,
it shall render judgment for the defendant to recover
his costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court
shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears
from either party and award costs as justice requires.
JUDGMENT CONCLUSIVE ONLY ON
ISSUE OF POSSESSION/APPEAL
Sec. 18. Judgment Conclusive Only on Possession;
Not Conclusive in Actions Involving Title or
Ownership. – The judgment rendered in an action for
forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with
respect to the possession only and shall in no wise
bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or
building. Such judgment shall not bar an action
between the same parties respecting title to the land
or building.
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the
appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide
the same on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
parties or required by the Regional Trial Court.
IMMEDIATE EXECUTION AND STAYING
THE JUDGMENT
Sec. 19. Immediate Execution of Judgment; How to
Stay the Same. – If judgment is rendered against the
defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon
motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the
defendant to stay execution files a sufficient
supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial
Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the
rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time
of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the
pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate
court the amount of rent due from time to time under
the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of
the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a
contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial
Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation
of the premises for the preceding month or period at
the rate determined by the judgment of the lower
court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding
month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be
transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the
other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court
to which the action is appealed.
All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be
deposited with said court or authorized government
depositary bank, and shall be held there until the final
disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by
agreement of the interested parties, or in the absence
of reasonable grounds of opposition to a motion to
withdraw, or for justifiable reasons, shall decree
otherwise. Should the defendant fail to make the
payments above prescribed from time to time during
the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court, upon
motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof of such
failure, shall order the execution of the judgment
appealed from with respect to the restoration of
possession, but such execution shall not be a bar to
the appeal taking its course until the final disposition
thereof on the merits.
After the case is decided by the Regional Trial Court,
any money paid to the court by the defendant for
purposes of the stay of execution shall be disposed of
in accordance with the provisions of the judgment of
the Regional Trial Court. In any case wherein it
appears that the defendant has been deprived of the
lawful possession of land or building pending the
appeal by virtue of the execution of the judgment of
the Municipal Trial Court, damages for such
deprivation of possession and restoration of
possession may be allowed the defendant in the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court disposing of the
appeal.
JUDGMENT IN EJECTMENT CASE
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY/STAYING
OF JUDGMENT
Herminia Acbang vs. Hon. Jimmy H.F. Luczon, Jr.,
et al
G.R. No. 164246 [January 15, 2014]
SC: A judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an
ejectment suit is immediately executory, but the
defendant, to stay its immediate execution, must: (1)
perfect an appeal; (2) file a supersedeas bond; and (3)
periodically deposit the rentals becoming due during
the pendency of the appeal.
MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE SHERIFF
IN EXECUTING THE
JUDGMENT/DEVIATION FROM THE
RULES IS A MISCONDUCT
Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera vs. Alfredo T. Pallanan
A.M. No. P-12-3069 [January 20, 2014]
SC: Well-settled is the rule that the sheriff’s duty in
the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to
execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. He
has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or
not. When the writ is placed in his hands, it is his
duty, in the absence of any instructions to the
contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and
promptness to implement it in accordance with its
mandate. Absent a TRO, an order of quashal, or
compliance with Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court, respondent sheriff has no alternative but to
enforce the writ.
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY
INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
Sec. 20. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in Case
of Appeal. – Upon motion of the plaintiff, within ten
(10) days from the perfection of the appeal to the
Regional Trial Court, the latter may issue a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the
plaintiff in possession if the court is satisfied that the
defendant’s appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that the
appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious.
RTC DECISION IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY
Sec. 21. Immediate Execution on Appeal to Court of
Appeals or Supreme Court. – The judgment of the
Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be
immediately executory, without prejudice to a further
appeal that may be taken therefrom.
Air Transportation Office vs. Court of Appeals, et al
G.R. No. 173616 [June 25, 2014]
SC: The RTC’s duty to issue a writ of execution
under Section 21 of Rule 70 is ministerial and may be
compelled by mandamus. Section 21 of Rule 70
presupposes that the defendant in a forcible entry or
unlawful detainer case is unsatisfied with the RTC’s
judgment and appeals to a higher court. It authorizes
the RTC to immediately issue a writ of execution
without prejudice to the appeal taking its due course.
The rationale of immediate execution of judgment in
an ejectment case is to avoid injustice to a lawful
possessor. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the
appellate court may stay the writ of execution should
circumstances so require.
CONTEMPT
[RULE 71]
BASIC CONCEPTS
Contempt of Court – a disregard of, or disobedience
to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body
or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly
behavior or insolent language in its presence or so
near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair
the respect due to such a body.
Class of Contempt
1. Direct Contempt – one which is committed
in the presence of or so near the judge as to
obstruct him in the administration of justice.
2. Indirect Contempt – a.k.a “Constructive
Contempt,” is one which consists of willful
disobedience of the lawful process or order
of the court.
Nature of Contempt Proceedings
Rule: Proceedings for Contempt are sui generis, in
nature criminal, but may be resorted to in civil as
well as criminal actions, and independently of any
action. They are of two (2) classes:
1. Criminal Contempt – consists in conduct
that is directed against the authority and
dignity of a court or of a judge acting
judicially, as in unlawfully assailing or
discrediting the authority and dignity of the
court or judge, or in doing a duly forbidden
act.
2. Civil Contempt – consists in the failure to
do something ordered to be done by a court
or judge in a civil case for the benefit of the
opposing party therein.
3.
How to Determine if Criminal or Civil Contempt
• The proceedings are to be regarded as criminal
when the purpose is primarily punishment, and civil
when the purpose is primarily compensatory or
remedial.
How to Determine if Criminal or Civil Contempt
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. Distribution
Management Association of the Philippines
G.R. No. 155849 [August 31, 2011]
SC: Where the dominant purpose is to enforce
compliance with an order of a court for the benefit of
a party in whose favor the order runs, the contempt is
civil; where the dominant purpose is to vindicate the
dignity and authority of the court, and to protect to
interests of the general public, the contempt is
criminal.
Power to Punish for Contempt Inherent in All
Courts
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. Distribution
Management Association of the Philippines
SC: The power to punish for contempt essentially
exists for the enforcement of judgments, orders, and
mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for the due
administration of justice. The reason behind the
power to punish for contempt is that respect of the
courts guarantees the stability of their institution;
without such guarantee, the institution of the courts
would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
Contempt Proceedings vs. Administrative
Proceedings for the Discipline of a Lawyer
• Contempt and suspension proceedings are supposed
to be separate and distinct. They have different
objects and purposes for which different procedures
have been established.
Alen Ross Rodriguez, et al vs. Hon. Bienvenido
Blancaflor, et al
G.R. No. 190171 [March 14, 2011]
SC: a notice to a lawyer to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt cannot be
considered as a notice to show why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law, considering that
they have distinct objects and for each of the different
procedure is established. Contempt of court is
governed by the procedures laid down under Rule 71
of the Rules of Court, whereas disciplinary actions in
the practice of law are governed by Rules 138 and
139 thereof.
DIRECT CONTEMPT
Sec. 1. Direct Contempt Punished Summarily. – A
person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so
near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings before the same, including disrespect
toward the court, offensive personalities toward
others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a
witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition
when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily
adjudged in contempt by such court and punished by
a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if
it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent
or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding two
hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1)
day, or both, if it be a lower court.
Direct contempt may be committed when:
1. A person guilty of misbehavior in the
presence of or so near a court as to obstruct
or interrupt the proceedings before the same;
2. Disrespect towards the court;
3. Offensive personalities toward others;
4. Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a
witness; or
5. Refusal to subscribe an affidavit or
deposition when lawfully required to do so.
HOW IS DIRECT CONTEMPT
PUNISHED?
• The punishment is generally summary and
immediate, and no process or evidence is necessary
because the act is committed in facie curiae. The
inherent power of courts to punish contempt of court
committed in the presence of the courts without
further proof of facts and without aid of a trial is not
open to question, considering that this power is
essential to preserve their authority and to prevent the
administration of justice from falling into disrepute;
such summary conviction and punishment is in
accord with due process of law.
NATURE OF THE ORDER OF DIRECT
CONTEMPT
Josephine Jazmines Tan vs. Judge Sibanah E.
Usman
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2666 [February 15, 2011]
SC: An order of direct contempt is NOT immediately
executory or enforceable – the contemner must be
afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge
himself of the contempt.
REMEDY IN CASE OF DIRECT
CONTEMPT
Sec. 2. Remedy therefrom. – The person adjudged in
direct contempt by any court may not appeal
therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of
certiorari and prohibition. The execution of the
judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of
such petition, provided 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.
Q: What is the effect of the filing of the petition?
How to stay?
A: The execution of the judgment shall be suspended
pending resolution of the petition, provided such
person shall:
1. File a bond fixed by the court which
rendered the judgment; and
2. Conditioned that he will abide by and
perform the judgment should the petition be
decided against him.
INDIRECT CONTEMPT
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 the be heard by
himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt:
a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions;
b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,
including the act of person who, after being
dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any
court of 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 the possession
given to the person adjudged to be entitled
thereof;
c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference
with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under
Section 1 of this Rule;
 d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade
the administration of justice;
e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a
court, and acting as such without authority;
f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
g) 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.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to
prevent the court from issuing process to bring the
respondent into court, or from holding him in custody
pending such proceedings.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall
be commenced by a verified petition with supporting
particulars and certified true copies of documents or
papers involved therein, and upon full compliance
with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings
for civil actions in the court concerned. If the
contempt charges arose out of or are related to a
principal action pending in the court, the petition for
contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall
be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the
court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the
contempt charge and the principal action for joint
hearing and decision.

HOW CAN A PERSON BE HELD LIABLE

FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT?
A person will be liable when:
1. After a charge in writing has been filed;
2. An opportunity given to the respondent to
comment thereon within such period as may
be fixed by the court; and
3. Given a chance to be heard by himself or
counsel.

PROCEEDINGS FOR PUNISHMENT FOR

INDIRECT CONTEMPT ARE CRIMINAL
IN NATURE
P/Supt. Hansel Marantan vs. Atty. Jose Diokno, et
al
G.R. No. 205956 [February 12, 2014]
SC: The proceedings for punishment of indirect
contempt are criminal in nature. This form of
contempt is conduct that is directed against the
dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting
judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration
of justice which tends to bring the court into
disrepute or disrespect. Intent is a necessary element
in criminal contempt, and no one can be punished for
a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it
clear that he intended to commit it.

HOW INDIRECT CONTEMPT BE

COMMENCED?
Sec. 4. How Proceedings Commenced. –
Proceedings for indirect contempt may be 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.
JURISPRUDENCE
Eligio P. Mallari vs. Government Service Insurance
System, et al
G.R. No. 157659 [January 25, 2010]
SC: In contempt proceedings, the prescribed
procedure must be followed. Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 71
of the Rules of Court provide the procedure to be
followed in case of indirect contempt. First, there
must be an order requiring the respondent to show
cause why he should not be cited for contempt.
Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity
to comment on the charge against him. Third, there
must be a hearing and the court must investigate the
charge and consider respondent’s answer. Finally,
only if found guilty will respondent be punished
accordingly.
Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. vs. Manuel
O. Sanchez
G.R. No. 182738 [February 24, 2014]
SC: But in indirect contempt proceedings initiated
motu proprio by the court, the above rules, as
clarified in Regalado, do not necessarily apply. First,
since the court itself motu proprio initiates the
proceedings, there can be no verified petition to
speak of. Instead, the court has the duty to inform the
respondent in writing, in accordance with his or her
right to due process. This formal charge is done by
the court in the form of an Order requiring the
respondent to explain why he or she should not be
cited in contempt of court.
WHERE TO FILE?
Sec. 5. Where Charge to be filed. – Where the charge
for indirect contempt has been committed against the
Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it, the
charge may be filed with such court. Where such
contempt has been committed against a lower court,
the charge may be filed with the Regional Trial Court
of the place in which the lower court is sitting; but
the proceedings may also be instituted in such lower
court subject to appeal to the Regional Trial Court of
such place in the same manner as provided in Section
11 of this Rule.
Hearing on bail
Sec. 6. Hearing on Bail. – If the hearing is not
ordered to be had forthwith, the respondent may be
released from custody upon filing a bond, in an
amount fixed by the court, for his appearance at the
hearing of the charge. On the day set therefore, the
court shall proceed to investigate the charge and
consider such comment, testimony or defense as the
respondent may make or offer.
PUNISHMENT FOR INDIRECT
CONTEMPT
Sec. 7. Punishment for Indirect Contempt. – If the
respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt
committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court
of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a
fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both.
If he is adjudged guilty of contempt committed
against a lower court, he may be punished by a fine
not exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment
not exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the
contempt consists in the violation of a writ of
injunction, temporary restraining order or status quo
order, he may also be ordered to make complete
restitution to the party injured by such violation of
the property involved or such amount as may be
alleged and proved.
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions,
shall issue for the enforcement of a judgment
imposing a fine unless the court otherwise provides.
IMPRISONMENT UNTIL ORDER
OBEYED
Sec. 8. Imprisonment Until Order Obeyed. – When
the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do
an act which is yet in the power of the respondent to
perform, he may be imprisoned by order of the court
concerned until he performs it.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ANSWER
Sec. 9. Proceeding When Party Released on Bail
Fails to Answer. – When a respondent released on
bail fails to appear on the day fixed for the hearing,
the court may issue another order of arrest or may
order the bond for his appearance to be forfeited and
confiscated, or both; and, if the bond be proceeded
against, the measure of damages shall be the extent of
the loss or injury sustained by the aggrieved party by
reason of the misconduct for which the contempt
charge was prosecuted, with the costs of the
proceedings, and such recovery shall be for the
benefit of the party injured. If there is no aggrieved
party, the bond shall be liable and disposed of as in
criminal cases.
RELEASE OF THE RESPONDENT BY
THE COURT
Sec. 10. Court May Release Respondent. – The court
which issued the order imprisoning a person for
contempt may discharge him from imprisonment
when it appears that public interest will not be
prejudiced by his release.
REVIEW OF FINAL JUDGMENT OR
FINAL ORDER AND POSTING OF BOND
FOR STAY
Sec. 11. Review of Final Judgment or Final Order;
Bond for Stay. – The judgment or final order of a
court in case of indirect contempt may be appealed to
the proper court as in criminal cases. But execution
of the judgment or final order shall not be suspended
until a bond is filed by the person adjudged in
contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from
which the appeal is taken, conditioned that if the
appeal be decided against him, he will abide by and
perform the judgment or final order.
CONTEMPT AGAINST QUASI-JUDICIAL
ENTITIES
Sec. 12. Contempt Against Quasi-Judicial Entities.
– Unless otherwise provided by law, this Rule shall
apply to contempt committed against persons,
entities, bodies or agencies exercising quasi-judicial
functions, or shall have suppletory effect to such
rules as they may have adopted pursuant to authority
granted to them by law to punish for contempt. The
Regional Trial Court of the place wherein the
contempt has been committed shall have jurisdiction
over such charges as may be filed therefor.
OTHER SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
[A.M. NO. 09-6-08, RULES OF
PROCEDURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES]
Nature of the Writ of Kalikasan
Sec. 1. Nature of the Writ. – The writ is a remedy
available to a natural or juridical person, entity
authorized by law, people’s organization, non-
governmental organization, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any
government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or threatened with a violation by
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces.
The writ is available against an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity. The following requisites must be
present to avail of this remedy:
1. There is an actual or threatened violation of
the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;
2. The actual or threatened violation arises
from an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or
entity; and
3. The actual or threatened violation involves
or will lead to an environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health, or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces (LNL Archipelago
Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, G.R.
No. 209165, April 12, 2016)
CONTENTS OF THE PETITION
Sec. 2. Contents of the Petition. – The verified
petition shall contain the following:
a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b) The name and personal circumstances of the
respondent or if the name and personal
circumstances are unknown and uncertain,
 the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
c) The environmental law, rule or regulation
violated or threatened to be violated, the act
or omission complained of, and the
environmental damage of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces;
d) All relevant and material evidence
consisting of the affidavits of witnesses,
documentary evidence, scientific or other
expert studies, and if possible, object
evidence;
e) The certification of petitioner under oath
that: (1) petitioner has not commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency, and no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (2) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete
statement of its present status; (3) if
petitioner should learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, petitioner shall report to the court
that fact within five (5) days therefrom; and
f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a
prayer for the issuance of a TEPO.
WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION AND
DOCKET FEES
Sec. 3. Where to File. – The petition shall be filed
with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of
the Court of Appeals.
Sec. 4. No Docket Fees. – The petitioner shall be
exempt from the payment of docket fees.
ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF THE WRIT
Sec. 5. Issuance of the Writ. – Within three (3) days
from the date of filing of the petition, if the petition is
sufficient in form and substance, the court shall give
an order: (a) issuing the writ; and (b) requiring the
respondent to file a verified return as provided in
Section 8 of this Rule. The clerk of court shall
forthwith issue the writ under the seal of the court
including the issuance of a cease and desist order and
other temporary reliefs effective until further order.
Sec. 6. How the Writ is Served. – The writ shall be
served upon the respondent by a court officer or any
person deputized by the court, who shall retain a copy
on which to make a return of service. In case the writ
cannot be served personally, the rule on substituted
service shall apply.
PENALTY FOR REFUSAL TO ISSUE OR
SERVE THE WRIT
Sec. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the
Writ. – A clerk of court who unduly delays or refuses
to issue the writ after its allowance or a court officer
or deputized person who unduly delays or refuses to
serve the same shall be punished by the court for
contempt without prejudice to other civil, criminal or
administrative sanctions.
RETURN OF THE RESPONDENT
Sec. 8. Return of Respondent; Contents. – Within a
non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of
the writ, the respondent shall file a verified return
which shall contain all defenses to show that
respondent did not violate or threaten to violate, or
allow the violation of any environmental law, rule or
regulation or commit any act resulting to
environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces. All defenses not
raised in the return shall be deemed waived. The
return shall include affidavits of witnesses,
documentary evidence, scientific or other expert
studies, and if possible, object evidence, in support of
the defense of the respondent. A general denial of
allegations in the petition shall be considered as an
admission thereof.
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND
MOTIONS
Sec. 9. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The
following pleadings and motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return;
(c) Motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply; and
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default.
Failure to file return
Sec. 10. Effect of Failure to File Return. – In case
the respondent fails to file a return, the court shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
Hearing and preliminary conference
Sec. 11. Hearing. – Upon receipt of the return of the
respondent, the court may call a preliminary
conference to simplify the issues, determine the
possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions
from the parties, and set the petition for hearing. The
hearing including the preliminary conference shall
not extend beyond sixty (60) days and shall be given
the same priority as petitions for the writs of habeas
corpus, amparo and habeas data.
Discovery measures
Sec. 12. Discovery Measures. – A party may file a
verified motion for the following reliefs:
a) Ocular Inspection; order. – The motion must
show that an ocular inspection order is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the
violation or the threat as to prejudice life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities
or provinces. It shall state in detail the place or
places to be inspected. It shall be supported by
affidavits of witnesses having personal
knowledge of the violation or threatened
violation of environmental law.
After hearing, the court may order any person in
possession or control of a designated land or
other property to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon.
The order shall specify the person or persons
authorized to make the inspection and the date,
time, place and manner of making the inspection
and may prescribe other conditions to protect
the constitutional rights of all parties.
b) Production or Inspection of Documents or
Things; Order. – The motion must show that a
production order is necessary to establish the
magnitude of the violation or the threat as to
prejudice life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or provinces.
After hearing, the court may order any person in
possession, custody of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or
objects in digitized or electronic form, which
constitute or contain evidence relevant to the
petition or the return, to produce and permit
their inspection, copying or photographing by or
on behalf of the movant.
The production order shall specify the person or
persons authorized to make the production and
the date, time, place and manner of making the
inspection or production and may prescribe
other conditions to protect the constitutional
rights of all parties.
CONTEMPT
Sec. 13. Contempt. – The court may after hearing
punish the respondent who refuses or unduly delays
the filing of a return, or who makes a false return, or
any person who disobeys or resists a lawful process
or order of the court for indirect contempt under Rule
71 of the Rules of Court.
SUBMISSION OF THE CASE FOR
DECISION/FILING OF MEMORANDA
Sec. 14. Submission of Case for Decision; Filing of
Memoranda. – After hearing, the court shall issue an
order submitting the case for decision. The court
may require the filing of memoranda and if possible,
in its electronic form, within a non-extendible period
of thirty (30) days from the date the petition is
submitted for decision.
Q: What are the courses of action of the court
after the hearing is terminated?
A: The court shall:
1. Issue an order submitting the case for
decision;
2. May require the filing of memoranda and if
possible, in its electronic form, within a non-
extendible period of thirty (30) days from
the date the petition is submitted for
decision.
Rendition of judgment
Sec. 15. Judgment. – Within sixty (60) days from the
time the petition is submitted for decision, the court
shall render judgment granting or denying the
privilege of the writ of kalikasan. The reliefs that
may be granted under the writ are the following:
(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease
and desist from committing acts or
neglecting the performance of a duty in
violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage;
(b) Directing the respondent public official,
government agency, private person or entity
to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore
the environment;
(c) Directing the respondent public official,
government agency, private person or entity
to monitor strict compliance with the
decision and orders of the court;
(d) Directing the respondent public official,
government agency, or private person or
entity to make periodic reports on the
execution of the final judgment; and
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology or to the protection, preservation,
rehabilitation or restoration of the
environment, except the award of damages
to individual petitioners.
APPEAL
Sec. 16. Appeal. – Within fifteen (15) days from the
date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial of
motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact.
INSTITUTION OF SEPARATE ACTIONS
Sec. 17. Institution of Separate Actions. – The filing
of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan
shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal
or administrative actions.
WRIT OF CONTINUING
MANDAMUS
Continuing Mandamus – is a remedy available to a
natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people’s organization. Non-governmental
organization, or any public interest group accredited
by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or
threatened with a violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces (Sec. 1, Rule 8, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8,
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases).
FILING OF PETITION
Sec. 1. Petition for Continuing Mandamus. – When
any agency or instrumentality of the government or
officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station in connection
with the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law, rule or regulation or a right
therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use
or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence,
specifying that the petition concerns an
environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying
that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the
judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages
sustained by the petitioner by reason of malicious
neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under
the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also
contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
CONTINUING MANDAMUS – EXERCISE
OF THE COURT OF CONTINUING
JURISDICTION
Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 [February 15, 2011]
SC: With the final and executory judgment in
MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued in
MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have
shown full compliance with the Court’s orders, the
Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over them
until full execution of the judgment.
View that it is an oft-repeated rule that the Court has
no power to issue advisory opinions, much less
“directives” requiring progress reports from the
parties respecting the execution of its decisions – the
requirements of “actual case or controversy” and
“justiciability” have long been established in order to
limit the exercise of judicial review. Needless to say,
the “continuing mandamus” in this case runs counter
to principles of “actual case or controversy” and other
requisites for judicial review.”
WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION? /
DOCKET FEES
Sec. 2. Where to File the Petition. – The petition
shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable
neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of writ shall be made to the court and if the court finds
Appeals or the Supreme Court. that the judgment has been fully implemented, the
Sec. 3. No Docket Fees. – The petitioner shall be satisfaction of the judgment shall be entered in the
exempt from the payment of docket fees. court docket.

ORDER TO COMMENT RETURN OF THE WRIT

Sec. 4. Order to Comment. – If the petition is
sufficient in form and substance, the court shall issue
the writ and require the respondent to comment on
the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a
copy thereof. Such order shall be served on the
respondents in such manner as the court may direct,
together with a copy of the petition and any annexes
thereon.
Sec. 8. Return of the Writ. – The periodic reports
submitted by the respondent detailing compliance
with the judgment shall be contained in partial returns
of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a
final return of the writ shall be made to the court by
the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment
has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of
judgment shall be entered in the court docket.

EXPEDITING PROCEEDINGS/TEPO
Sec. 5. Expediting Proceedings; TEPO. – The court
in which the petition is filed may issue such orders to
expedite the proceedings, and it may also grant a
TEPO for the preservation of the rights of the parties
pending such proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS AFTER COMMENT

Sec. 6. Proceedings After Comment is Filed. – After
the comment is filed or the time for filing thereof has
expired, the court may hear the case which shall be
summary in nature or require the parties to submit
memoranda. The petition shall be resolved without
delay within sixty (60) days from the date of the
submission of the petition for resolution.

JUDGMENT
Sec. 7. Judgment. – If warranted, the court shall
grant the privilege of the writ of continuing
mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or
series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and
to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted
resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the
respondent. The court shall require the respondent to
submit periodic reports detailing the progress and
execution of the judgment, and the court may, by
itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate
government agency, evaluate and monitor
compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments
or observations on the execution of the judgment.

JURISPRUDENCE
Maricris Dolot vs. Hon. Ramon Paje, et al
G.R. No. 199199 [August 27, 2013]
SC: It is only upon full satisfaction of the final
judgment, order or decision that a final return of the