Requisites of Interpleader RULE 62

1. There must two or more claimants with adverse or conflicting interest upon a subject matter;
2. The conflicting claims involve the same subject matter;
3. The conflicting claims are made against the same person (plaintiff)
4. The plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the adverse claims or if he has an interest at
all, such interest is not disputed by the claimant.

Requisites of Declaratory relief and similar remedies RULE 63

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 term of the said documents and validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction
3. There must have been no breach of documents in question
4. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons
whose interest are adverse;
5. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination;
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.

RULE 64

Petition must be based on jurisdictional ground that is, the commission has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Grounds for dismissal

1. Failure to comply with form and content of the petition

2. Filed manifestly for delay
3. Questioned raised are too unsubstantial

Effect of filling?

It will not stay the decision sought to be reviewed unless the SC shall direct otherwise upon such terms
as it may deem just.

RULE 65

CERTIORARI

Is an original action invoking the original jurisdiction of a court to annul or modify the proceedings of a
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Limited only on errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

It is a remedy to correct acts of any tribunal, board or officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions that constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Certiorari cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost
through fault or negligence

Requisites

1. The petition is directed against a tribunal, noard or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial
functions.
2. Such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or inexcess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discreation amounting lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

Certiorari may be allowed even if appeal is available when, appeal is inadequate, slow, inefficient, and
will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of.

PROHIBITION

Writ commanding to desist a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person from further proceedings
when such are conducted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

Requisites

1. The assailed act must be that of a tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions;
2. And such body are acted with or without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion;
3. There is no appeal or plain, speedy or any adequate remedy in the course of law

The SC also held that a petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive
officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority.

MANDAMUS

The function is to command and not to inquire, expedite or adjudicate.

Directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person commanding as such to do an act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and no appeal or plain, speedy or adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law;

1. When it or he UNLAWFULLY NEGLECT the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty.
 2. When one is UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDES another from the USE and ENJOYMENT of a right or office
to which such person is entitled.

Requisites of mandamus

1. The plaintiff has a clear legal rights to act demanded;

2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act, because it is mandated by law;
3. The defendant unlawfully neglect the performance of the duty enjoined by law
4. The act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary
5. There is no appeal or plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Mandamus is a writ that commands the performance of a purely ministerial duty exception,

When the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may only be
directed by mandamus to ACT but to act in one way or another.

It is also available to COMPEL action, when REFUSED, in matters involving judgment and discretion, but
not to direct the exercise of judgment in a particular manner.

RULE 66 QUO WARRANTO

It is a prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he
holds a public office or exercises a public franchise.

It is specifically described as an action for the usurpation of a PUBLIC

A. OFFICE
B. POSITION
C. FRANCHISE

That is commenced by filling a verified petition in the name of the RP

Action for quo warranto is generally filed by the republic thru solgen or public prosec. However, an
Individual or person may file it in his behalf so long as he is the one who claims to be entitled to the
public office or position which was usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another. He must show
therefor that he has a clear right to the office allegedly being held by another.

An action for quo warranto may be given precedence over any other civil matter pending in the court.
Hence, court mat reduce the period provided in these rules to secure the most expeditious
determination of the matter involved therein consistent with the rights of the parties.