Special Civil Actions  
 
Ordinary Special
  Like ordinary sues another for enforcement for
redress or prevention of a wrong but additionally
governed by Rules 62-71
 
12 if under Rule 65, include prohibition and mandamus
Governed by regular procedure
 
Provisional remedies may be availed of in any SCA
2019 amendments apply if applicable
What are those instances where 2019 amendments Rule 6-35 are
applicable?
 
When not applicable: when there are specific Rules
 
Ex. Complaint for Interpleader. Rule 62 gives 15 days for answer.
30 days is not applied as there is a specific Rule
 
Nature: They are the same as that of ordinary only that they are
governed by specific rules
 
How initiated? Most of these SCA like complaint in interpleader,
expropriation, foreclosure, partition, ejectment: initiated by
complaint and must comply with 2019 rules on complaint:
additional requirements and contents under Sec 6
 
 
SCA via petition
1. Rule 64 : commenced by petition for certiorari
2. Rule 65
3. Rule 66
4. Indirect Contempt --> direct contempt is
governed by another procedure
 
These petitions are verified. Initiatory pleadings
 
 
Do they all require cause of action? Not all
 
Rule 62: Complaint for Interpleader
Availed of when there is a person who is in possession of a
property, whether real or personal, or that person has an obligation
to perform and this property or this obligation is being claimed by
2 or more conflicting claimants claiming entitlement to that
property or obligation as the case may be
 
This plaintiff in interpleader does not have a claim over the
property in his or her possession and does not have any interest in
the obligation, or if there is a claim, undisputed by conflicting
claimants
 
He is being vexxed. Remedy is to file complaint-interpleader
Jurisdiction? Depends on subject matter.
 
Real: assessed value.
Personal: market value
 
Obligation: depends if in the nature of incapable of pecuniary
estimation. RTC
Obligation arising from a real property, a real interest: depend on
assessed value
Page 1 of 3
Acampado
Arises from obligation to deliver personal property: value of that
property
Where should the venue be? Same Rule as that of Rule 4
 
Venue:
Sec 1: Real Action
Sec 2: Personal Action
Compare with action in rem, action in personam and quasi
Can be dismissed motu propiio if the court finds that it does not
have jurisdiction
Default if one conflicting complainant does not file an answer
Motion to dismiss:
1. Impropriety: no proper ground.
2. One of the requisites is lacking
3. Plaintiff in interpleader has a claims
4. Other appropriate grounds to dismiss - any of
those 4 non-waivable grounds
 
Can file a reply here
 
 
What are the requisites?
 
Purpose: Not to avoid double recovery but to avoid double
vexation
 
Action for interpleader
file: complaint for interpleader
 
The tenant of a commercial unit was asked by the new owner of
the commercial building who bought the CB from the previous
owner to pay the rentals to him as the new owner. The tenant two
days before that got a demand letter to pay also to the building
administrator. The contract of lease which was to expire in 1 year,
on the 10th month, the new owner is to collect. The contract said
that the payment be paid to the building administrator. The tenant
is inquiring to whom he will pay the rentals.
--> No. in the contract it says to pay to the building administrator.
The payment to the new owner should have been included in the
acquisition. Buyer must respect the lease and existing contracts.
 
Husband and wife purchased house and lot in Tagaytay and
executed a conditional sale and this is payable in 5 years. After 3
years, husband and wife quarreled. Y filed declaration of nullity of
marriage. The case continued. In the meantime, they have fully
paid the house and lot in Tagaytay. The next step in that contract is
for the subdivision developer to execute a deed of sale and to turn
over ownership to the spouses. In the meantime, declaration of
marriage was pending, husband contacted developer. The title of
that house and lot should be in my name because we have agreed
on who is the owner of that property. Y said no it should be in my
name because we agreed to divide the properties and most of the
payment came from my own resources.
Developer is faced with conflicting claims as to whom between the
two title of the deed of absolute sale be executed to. Is this proper
for interpleader?
--> No. There is a pending declaration of nullity of marriage. The
FC which hears the petition will determine their property relations.
Their conflicting claims will be heard in the Family Court
 
X and Y are girlfriend and boyfriend and have their respective
businesses. They agreed to enter into a partnership. Both licensed
dentists and bought real property and constructed their dental
clinic. It went on for 2 years and X thought Y was having an affair
and the quarreled. They now demand that they have to divide the
properties. In the meantime, the owner of the real property from
which they bought has not yet turned over the title over the real
property to which they erected their dental clinic. X was the first to
ask the owner to turn over the title to her since she was the one
who paid most of the funds. Y also asked the owner that the title
should be In his name because that was not true, 75% of the funds
came from him. Does the owner have the obligation to deliver the
title? Yes. Is there conflicting claims? Yes. Over the same
obligation? Yes.
 
This could be proper for complaint in intervention
 
What if let's say, at the time when X and Y were demanding from
the owner of that real property, there is a pending case for partition
that was filed by the boyfriend? No. This should have been
threshed out in the partition proceedings
 
Rule 63: Petition for Declaratory Relief
 
Commenced by filing a petition that is an initiatory pleading
 
Wants the court to determine to construe, to determine the validity,
of that deed will statute executive order etc and declare his rights
under those mentioned
What is important is that there must be no breach or violation
 
Who are parties? All parties who may have a claim
 
Will a motion for dismiss be possible on the ground that a party
who was interest was not impleaded? No. proper remedy is to
implead
 
Rule 64:
Why review and not appeal? There is no mode of appeal. They will
have to file petition for certiorari instead
 
 
The SC may even review questions of fact
 
Rule 64 vs Rule 65
 
Rule 45 v Rule 64
 
 
Rule 65
 
3 remedies
 
1. Certiorari
2. Prohibition
3. Mandamus
Commenced by petition
 
Purpose of certiorari/immediate relief sought: petitioner is seeking
for the nullification of the proceedings or the order or judgment
subject of that petition having been issued rendered in excess,
without, gadalej
 
Prohibition: to command the tribunal etc to desist from continuing
with the proceedings
 
Mandamus: the immediate relief sought is also for the respondent
to do the act that is required of him to do
 
Page 2 of 3
Acampado
 
X, private offended party, filed a criminal complaint with the
Office of the City Prosecutor alleging that her boss, the manager of
the company, harassed her while she was taking a nap during the
lunch break around 12-12:30 at their office. The investigating
prosecutor filed for the respondent to file counter affidavit. There
were 2 sessions of preliminary investigation. 3 months have
elapsed yet no resolution has been released by prosecutor despite
follow-ups. She filed for petition for certiorari with the RTC
contending that there has been gadalej on the part of the prosecutor
because he failed to issue the resolution. Is this the proper remedy?
 
No. The subject matter of the petition is to require the prosecutor
to perform his duty under Rule 112 on the rules of criminal
procedure. What is required under that Rule? That the IP must
resolve and issue a resolution on the complaint affidavit within 45
days from the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Should
have been petition for mandamus
 
Prosecutor issued a resolution within the time recommending that
the complaint for acts of lasciviousness should be filed against the
boss but the offended party did not like it because her complaint
was for anti sexual harassment law. Why did the prosecutor instead
file for acts of lasciviousness? She wanted anti sexual harassment
as the penalty is higher. She filed petition for certiorari that
prosecutor committed gadalej in recommending such complaint. Is
the private offended party correct?
No. There is an existing available remedy. What's the proper
remedy? If you have questions against the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor. File motion for reconsideration or
petition for review with the DOJ
 
 
Look at what the tribunal agency etc exercises or what kind of
function
If ministerial, and to do what he should have done: mandamus. But
can only be availed of if there is no other remedy
 
The subdivision buyer asks the subdv developer to deliver the title
of the subdivision lot after she has fully paid the purchase price.
Notwithstanding demands, the developer did not deliver and turn
over title to the buyer. The buyer filed a complaint for specific
performance with the RTC praying to compel the developer to
issue and turn over the title of the lot. The developer filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that the RTC does not have jurisdiction
and that the complaint should have filed with the HLURB. RTC
denied and continued with the proceedings for specific
performance. The developer filed for MR of the order denying the
motion to dismiss. Still, MR was denied. The subdivision
developer filed a petition for certiorari with the court of appeals
and applying for preliminary injunction and/or TRO to enjoin the
case and that HLURB has jurisdiction. Is the remedy proper?
 
No. File prohibition not certiorari to desist from proceeding
 
Requisites of these 3 remedies (independent special siopao)
1. As to the ground: that the tribunal, officer,
body etc have acted without jurisdiction, in
excess, or gadalej
2. There is no available appeal, plain speedy and
adequate remedy
**these two common to the 3
 
Is the remedy proper? Go into the purpose first before requisites
 
When is certiorari available to judgments and orders of courts?
Check if there is appeal or adequate remedies available
 
Interlocutory vs final order
 
Interlocutory as a rule certiorari is not a remedy if there is an
available remedy
 
X filed a case with the RTC. Y filed a motion to dismiss on
prescription. RTC dismissed this motion and the subsequent MR
filed. Y said gadalej. Filed cert to CA and applied for preliminary
injunction and/or TRO. Is the pet cert proper? No. there is an
available remedy in the RTC. To proceed with the action
 
 
Which court can hear these 3 remedies?
 
BP 129: RTC, CA and SC exercises concurrent and exclusive
jurisdiction

Although they are concurrent, the petitioner who will avail must
observe the principle of hierarchy of courts
 
File first with RTC, unless the body is equal rank of RTC, file with
CA
 
Example: NLRC --> go to CA first
 
 
Issues of transcendental importance for the SC to recognize and
exercise its power or jurisdiction hearing petitions for certiorari
directly to the SC even without compliance to the principle of
hierarchy of courts
 
Expanded power of judicial review
Aquino case
KMU case
 
Rule 65 certiorari invoking the expanded judicial review under Sec
1 of Article VIII, par 2 of the Constitution
 
Madamus v Prohibition v Injunction
 
FOCUS ON AVAILABLE REMEDY

Page 3 of 3
Acampado