Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

IX.C Where to file

-#####Dela Llana v. Alba, L-57883, March 12, 1982
Facts:
In 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled “An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes”, was passed. Gualberto De la
Llana, a judge in Olongapo, filed a petition for declaratory relief and/or for
prohibition assailing its validity because he would be one of the judges that would
be removed because of the reorganization and such law would contravene the
constitutional provision which provides the security of tenure of judges of the
courts. He averred that only the Supreme Court can remove judges NOT the Congress.

Question:
Was the filing of petition for declaratory relief valid?

Answer:
No.

Sec 1 of Rule 63: 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.

In this case, petitioners ignored the fact that an action for declaratory relief
should be filed in a Court of First Instance. Apparently, petitioners are unaware
that there is no such proceeding known in constitutional law to declare an act
unconstitutional. That is the concept of judicial review as known in the Philip-
pines, a principle that goes back to the epochal decision of Chief Justice Marshall
in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). This Court, then, as do lower courts,
has the duty and the power to declare an act unconstitutional but only as an
incident to its function of deciding cases.

SHORT VERSION
Facts:
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled “An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating
Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes” was passed. A judge filed a petition for
declaratory relief and/or for prohibition assailing its validity because he would
be one of the judges that would be removed because of the reorganization and such
law would contravene the constitutional provision which provides the security of
tenure of judges of the courts. He averred that only the Supreme Court can remove
judges NOT the Congress.

Question:
Was the filing of petition for declaratory relief valid?

Answer:
No.

Sec 1 of Rule 63: 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.

In this case, petitioner ignored the fact that an action for declaratory relief
should be filed in a Court of First Instance. Apparently, petitioners are unaware
that there is no such proceeding known in constitutional law to declare an act
unconstitutional. That is the concept of judicial review as known in the Philip-
pines, a principle that goes back to the epochal decision of Chief Justice Marshall
in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). This Court, then, as do lower courts,
has the duty and the power to declare an act unconstitutional but only as an
incident to its function of deciding cases.

IX.D Requisites
-#####Almeda v. Bathala Marketing, G.R. No. 150806, January 28, 2008
Facts:
Almeda, petitioner and lessor, entered into a contract with Bathala Marketing
Industries, as lessee, to lease a portion of the Almeda Compound for a term of four
years. The contract provided that should a new assessment of the land be
implemented with any new tax, charge, or burden by the authorities, the lessee
shall pay. During the effectivity of the contract, petitioners advised respondent
that it shall assess and collect VAT on its monthly rentals. Respondents contended
that VAT may not be imposed as rentals because it already existed prior to their
entering of contract. After sometime, petitioners informed respondents that its
monthly rental should be increased. Respondent refused to pay the VAT and adjusted
rentals as demanded but continued to pay the stipulated amount in their contract,
and instituted an action for declaratory relief for correct interpretation of their
contract. Petitioner in turn filed an action for ejectment, rescission, and damages
against respondent. Later on, petitioner moved for the dismissal of the declaratory
relief case for being improper remedy considering that respondent allegedly was
already in breach of the obligation and that the case would not end the litigation
and settle the rights of the parties.

Question:
Was the action for declaratory relief proper?

Answer:
Yes.

Declaratory relief is defined as 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.
Corollary is the general rule that such an action must be justified, as no other
adequate relief or remedy is available under the circumstances.
Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an action for declaratory relief, as
follows: 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 said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require
judicial construction; 3) there must have been no breach of the documents 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.

In this case, respondent religiously fulfilled its obligations. There is no showing

that respondent breached the subject contract of lease. Thus, respondent is not
barred from instituting before the trial court the petition for declaratory relief.
Petitioner's claim that petition is not proper because a separate action has been
commenced in court is not valid. The ruling in Panganiban v. Pilipinas Shell will
not apply because in that case, the unlawful detainer case had already been
resolved before the dismissal of the declaratory relief. In the case of Teodoro v
Mirasol, the declaratory relief action was dismissed even with an ongoing unlawful
detainer suit because there was already a breach of contract at the time of the
filing for declaratory relief. Given these facts, the court is disposed to
entertain this instant declaratory relief action even with a pendency of the
ejectment case.

SHORT VERSION
Facts:
X, petitioner and lessor, entered into a contract with Y, respondent, to lease a
property. The contract provided that should a new assessment of the land be
implemented with any new tax the lessee shall pay. During the effectivity of the
contract, petitioners advised respondent that it shall assess and collect VAT on
its monthly rentals. Respondents contended that the new tax may not be imposed as
rentals because it already existed prior to their entering of contract. Respondent
refused to pay the new tax and adjusted rentals as demanded but continued to pay
the stipulated amount in their contract, and instituted an action for declaratory
relief for correct interpretation of their contract.

Question:
Was the action for declaratory relief proper?

Answer:
Yes.

Declaratory relief is defined as 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.
Corollary is the general rule that such an action must be justified, as no other
adequate relief or remedy is available under the circumstances.
Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an action for declaratory relief, as
follows: 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 said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require
judicial construction; 3) there must have been no breach of the documents 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.

In this case, respondent religiously fulfilled its obligations. There is no showing

that respondent breached the subject contract of lease. Thus, respondent is not
barred from instituting before the trial court the petition for declaratory relief.
Petitioner's claim that petition is not proper because a separate action has been
commenced in court is not valid. The ruling in Panganiban v. Pilipinas Shell will
not apply because in that case, the unlawful detainer case had already been
resolved before the dismissal of the declaratory relief. In the case of Teodoro v
Mirasol, the declaratory relief action was dismissed even with an ongoing unlawful
detainer suit because there was already a breach of contract at the time of the
filing for declaratory relief.

-######Edades v. Edades, 99 Phil. 675

Facts:
Plaintiff brought an action for declaratory judgment on his hereditary rights of
his alleged father and the recognition of his status as an illegitimate son of
Emigdio Edades. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which
was granted as well. The court sustained the motion holding that "An action for
declaratory relief just for the purpose of clearing away doubt, uncertainty, or
insecurity to the plaintiff's status or rights would seem to be improper and
outside the purview of a declaratory relief. Neither can it be availed of for
the purpose of compelling recognition of such rights, if disputed or objected
to." Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, without costs. From the
order of dismissal, plaintiff has appealed and the case was certified to this
court because only questions of law are involved in the appeal.

Question:
Was the action for declaratory relief proper?

Answer:
No.

Under the law, an action for declaratory relief is proper when any person is
interested "under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute or ordinance" in order to determine, any
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute,
or to declare his rights or duties thereunder. Moreover, the action should be
predicated on the following conditions:
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
controversy; and
(4) the issue involved must be ripened for judicial determination.

The present case does not come within the purview of the law authorizing an
action for declaratory relief for it neither concerns a deed, will, contract or
other written instrument, nor does it affect a statute or ordinance, the
construction or validity of which is involved. Nor is it predicated on any
justiciable controversy for admittedly the alleged rights of inheritance which
plaintiff desires to assert against the defendants as basis of the relief he is
seeking for have not yet accrued for the simple reason that his alleged father
Emigdio Edades has not yet died. In fact, he is one of the herein defendants.
And the law is clear that "the rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent". This action therefore cannot be maintained
if considered strictly as one for declaratory relief.

SHORT VERSION
Facts:
X, plaintiff, brought an action for declaratory judgment on his hereditary rights
of his alleged father and the recognition of his status as an illegitimate son of
Y. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was granted as well.
The court sustained the motion holding that "An action for declaratory relief just
for the purpose of clearing away doubt, uncertainty, or insecurity to the
plaintiff's status or rights would seem to be improper and outside the purview
of a declaratory relief. Neither can it be availed of for the purpose of
compelling recognition of such rights, if disputed or objected to."

Question:
Was the action for declaratory relief proper?

Answer:
No.
Under the law, an action for declaratory relief is proper when any person is
interested "under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute or ordinance" in order to determine, any
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute,
or to declare his rights or duties thereunder. Moreover, the action should be
predicated on the following conditions:
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
controversy; and
(4) the issue involved must be ripened for judicial determination.

The present case does not come within the purview of the law authorizing an
action for declaratory relief for it neither concerns a deed, will, contract or
other written instrument, nor does it affect a statute or ordinance, the
construction or validity of which is involved. Nor is it predicated on any
justiciable controversy for admittedly the alleged rights of inheritance which
plaintiff desires to assert against the defendants as basis of the relief. The law
is clear that "the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
death of the decedent". This action therefore cannot be maintained if considered
strictly as one for declaratory relief.

-######Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, 90 Phil. 83

Facts:
Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief in the CFI for the purpose of
testing the constitutionality of section 16-A of Commonwealth Act 3105, stating
that "it is a class legislation since by its terms it excludes persons engaged in
other callings or professions from adopting, acquiring or using a trade name in
connection with the practice of such callings or professions."
The complain alleges that defendants Ferguson and Hausaman, both foreigners, are
practicing their profession as public accountants under the trade name "Fleming and
Williamson"; and that Section 16-A of Act 3105 is unconstitutional on the ground
that it excludes person engaged in other callings and professions from using a
trade name.

Question:
Does plaintiff have sufficient cause of action to question the constitutionality of
such provision of the law?

Answer:
No.

An action for declaratory relief may be entertained, it must be predicated on the

following requisite facts or conditions:
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
controversy; and
(4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.

In this case, plaintiff seeks the declaratory relief not for his own personal
benefit, or because his rights or prerogatives as an accountant are adversely
affected, but rather for the benefit of persons belonging to other professions or
callings, who are not parties to this case. He does not claim having suffered any
prejudice or damage to him or to his rights or prerogatives as an accountant by the
use of the disputed name by the defendants. Plaintiff, therefore, has no actual
justiciable controversy against the herein defendants which may give him the right
to secure relief by asserting the unconstitutionality of the law in question. This
case, therefore, does not properly come under rule 66 of the Rules of Court which
authorizes the institution of an action for declaratory relief.

SHORT VERSION
Facts:
X filed an action for declaratory relief in the CFI for the purpose of testing the
constitutionality of a law allowing the profession of accountants to use a trade
name in connection with the practice. X alleges that the law is a class legislation
since by its terms it excludes persons engaged in other callings or proffession
from adopting a trade name.

Question:
Does plaintiff have sufficient cause of action to question the constitutionality of
such provision of the law?

Answer:
No.

An action for declaratory relief may be entertained, it must be predicated on the

following requisite facts or conditions:
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
controversy; and
(4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.

In this case, plaintiff seeks the declaratory relief not for his own personal
benefit, or because his rights or prerogatives as an accountant are adversely
affected, but rather for the benefit of persons belonging to other professions or
callings, who are not parties to this case. Plaintiff, therefore, has no actual
justiciable controversy against the herein defendants which may give him the right
to secure relief by asserting the unconstitutionality of the law in question. This
case, therefore, does not properly come under rule 66 of the Rules of Court which
authorizes the institution of an action for declaratory relief.

X. A. Review of Judgments of Comelec and Coa: Scope

-########Macabago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 152163, 18 November 2002
Facts:
Macabago was proclaimed as winning candidate for Mayor in Saguiran, Lanao del Sur.
Respondent, Salacop, filed a petition with Comelec to annul elections due to
rampant and pervasive irregularities in voting procedures rendering the election
process a sham and the proclamation a nullity. Respondent appended random Voters
Registration Records evidencing fraud and deceit that allegedly permeated the
electoral process. Petitioner denied the truth of the allegations and averred that
it raised a pre-proclamation controversy. The Comelec En Banc took cognizance of
the petition and issued an order directing petitioner to produce the original
Voters Registration Records. Petitioner filed with the SC the instant special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 praying for the reversal of the order of the
COMELEC En Banc.

Question:
Whether petitioners recourse to this Court under Rule 65 is in order.

Answer:
No.

Under Section 2 of the same Rule, a judgment or final order or resolution of the
COMELEC may be brought by the aggrieved party to this Court on certiorari under
Rule 65, as amended, except as therein provided. Rule 64 of the Rules applies only
to judgments or final orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions. The rule does not apply to interlocutory orders of the COMELEC in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions or to its administrative orders.

In this case, the assailed order of the COMELEC declaring private respondents
petition to be one for annulment of the elections or for a declaration of a failure
of elections in the municipality and ordering the production of the original copies
of the VRRs for the technical examination is administrative in nature. Rule 64, a
procedural device for the review of final orders, resolutions or decision of the
COMELEC, does not foreclose recourse to this Court under Rule 65 from
administrative orders of said Commission issued in the exercise of its
administrative function.

SHORT VERSION:
X was proclaimed as winner for the mayoral election. His opponent, Y, filed for
petition with Comelec to annul election result due to rampant irregularities in
voting procedures, and submitted Voters Registration Records as evidence. X denied
the allegations and averred that this raised a pre-proclamation controversy. The
Comelec issued an order to X to produce the original Voters Registration Records. X
filed with the SC a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 praying for
the reversal of the order of the Comelec.

Question:
Whether petitioners recourse to this Court under Rule 65 is in order.

Answer:
No.

Under Section 2 of the same Rule, a judgment or final order or resolution of the
COMELEC may be brought by the aggrieved party to this Court on certiorari under
Rule 65, as amended, except as therein provided. Rule 64 of the Rules applies only
to judgments or final orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions. The rule does not apply to interlocutory orders of the COMELEC in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions or to its administrative orders.

In this case, the assailed order of the COMELEC declaring private respondents
petition to be one for annulment of the elections or for a declaration of a failure
of elections in the municipality and ordering the production of the original copies
of the VRRs for the technical examination is administrative in nature. Rule 64, a
procedural device for the review of final orders, resolutions or decision of the
COMELEC, does not foreclose recourse to this Court under Rule 65 from
administrative orders of said Commission issued in the exercise of its
administrative function.