1st part- special civil action

Special civil action still classified as an action

What is an action?
What is special proceeding?
From the fundamental thing:
Dist action fr special proceeding
1. Action- enforce or protection of a right, prevention or redress of a wrong.
Special pro-establishes a status, a fact or a right.
2. Action is divided into 2 ordinary fr special civil action
OrdinarySpecial civil action- subject to specific rules in special civil action
Rule 3
-

Deviation fr the regular rules, in its absence follow ordinary civil action

Special proceeding- sui generis, there is a special rule for each

Land Registration Proceeding- you establish a fact or a right. You are asking the court to CONFIRM your
right. You put your property under Torrens system of registration.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
What is an interpleader?
Interpleader - that special civil remedy whereby a party who has property in his possession or an obligation
to perform, either wholly or partially, but who claims no interest in the subject, or whose interest, in whole or
in part, is not disputed by others, goes to court and asks that conflicting claimants to the property or
obligation be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine finally who is entitled to the same
PURPOSE OF REMEDY: to protect a person not against double liability but against double vexation in
respect to ones liability.
Reason- under the NCC, pyt is critical if you made to the wrong person it will not extinguish your obligation to
pay. If you are not sure:
1. Legal tender- amt of money that the creditor can be obliged to accept pyt.
Kung meron kang utang na P10k, di pwd .10c.
Process:
1. Sec 2- Order- it not enough that court issues summons but there shld be an ORDER which contains
2 things:
a. Conflicting claimants to interplead
b. Order the Pff- subj matter be delivered or paid to the court.
2. SUMMONS- sec 3
3. ANSWER sec 5
D shld answer fr service of summons
What if they did not answer- declared in default and bar them on any claim fr the subj matter
4. HEARING- sec 6
5. DOCKET AND OTHER LAWFUL FEES---sec 7
Can you file a counterclaim? Yes. How?
Eg you are renting an apt, 2 people are claiming rights on the rental. You filed for an interpleader. How can
they make counterclaim against you?

Answer: Pff di in pala nagbabayad ng rent. Make a counterclaim- that he shld pay.
What court has J?
P 503- Reano
MTC- 300k- personal property
What if it is an obligation to give or to do? Depends on the subject matterIf an action for interpleader is incapable of pecuniary estimation? RTC
I have a parcel of land and the qn is who among the claimants are the successor in interest? You have here a
property. You have to make delivery here.
What is the rule in determining the J? allegations of the complaint. If what is provided is:
A- That he bought it
B- He is the heir.
-

That may be incapable of pecuniary estimation.

An interpleader is still subject to general rule on J.

For purposes of venue, what is an action for interpleader? Still subject to the general rule on venue.
MARCELO A. MESINA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
The records of the case show that respondent bank had to resort to details in support of its action for
Interpleader. Before it resorted to Interpleader, respondent bank took all precautionary and necessary
measures to bring out the truth. On the other hand, petitioner concealed the circumstances known to him and
now that private respondent bank brought these circumstances out in court (which eventually rendered its
decision in the light of these facts), petitioner charges it with "gratuitous excursions into these non-issues."
Respondent IAC cannot rule on whether respondent RTC committed an abuse of discretion or not, without
being apprised of the facts and reasons why respondent Associated Bank instituted the Interpleader case.
Both parties were given an opportunity to present their sides. Petitioner chose to withhold substantial facts.
Respondents were not forbidden to present their side this is the purpose of the Comment of respondent to
the petition. IAC decided the question by considering both the facts submitted by petitioner and those given
by respondents. IAC did not act therefore beyond the scope of the remedy sought in the petition.
Another cs: warehouse receipt. 2 people claiming entitled to goods- file an action for interpleader.
What is a petition for DECLARATORY RELIEF?
What is the object for an action for declaratory judgment?
1. To determine a qn of construction or a qn of validity of a deed, will or contract or other written
instrument.
2. Determine the rights of the plaintiff
What are similar remedies that may be applied for?
ACTIONS SIMILAR TO DECLARATORY RELIEF
1. reformation
2. quieting of title
3. removal of cloud
4. consolidation (Art 1607, NCC) when? Sale with right to repurchase. What is the rule?
Who files the action? Vendee a retro
what is the purpose? To determine whether it is indeed a real sale or an equitable mortgage to protect
the mortgagor.
What is the subj of an action for declaratory relief?
1. Deed
2. Will

3. Contract
4. Other written instrument
5. Statue
6. EO
7. Regulation
8. Ordinance
In an action for reformation of instrument, quieting title to the property- there must be an instrument also,
consolidation of ownership- instru is the sale w/ right to repurchase.
Is the enumeration exclusive? Yes. Eg decision of the court- not included. Written instrument-ejusdem generis.
Remedy- go to the same court to ask the judgment
Statute- ambiguous and unconsti yan. Can you file declaratory relief? Yes.
Dist special civil action for declaratory relief and ordinary action?
ORDINARY
ACTI
ON

DECLARATOR
Y RELIEF

Writ of execution
is available

No writ of
execution

There is breach
or violation of
right

No breach or
violation

Motion to dismiss
Rule 16 and 17

Additional
ground for
Motion to
Dismiss -Rule
63 Sec. 4

1. Concept
a. OCA- D alleged to have violated Pffs right
b. DR- impending violation of Pffs right
2. Cause of action
Dr- there is no delict or wrong yet.
-

Every action must have a cause of action except an ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF.

3. As to nature of judgment
a. DR- stands in itself, no execution bec no delict or wrong but only an impending violation
b. OCA- enforceable by execution
Before breach the proper remedy a declaratory relief- if after breach file an ordinary civil action for
PROHIBITION since there is already a breach.

No breach- declaratory relief

w/ breach-prohibition
what court has J?
RTC. Declaratory relief is incapable of pecuniary estimation bec you are asking for an interpretation of a deed,
will, etc and reformation
What is the issue in a reformation of instrument? TRUE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES
What if they have different intention (different lots) ? Not reformation but to annul the sale
Art 1359- when they having been meeting of minds of the parties to a contract, the true intention is not
expressed in the instrument by FAMI- inequitable conduct, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of
the instrument.
( check this provision)
What is mistake? Art 1361. When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of the instrument. Intru
may be reformed.
Reformation may be made by parties or successor- if mistake was mutual.
FRAUD- one party was mistaken and the other party acted fraudulently. Art 1362.
Eg. Nagbentahan kami ni A ng property Lot A, klaro yan however what was indicated on the contract lot lang
sa Pinatubo and I have witnesses to that. When I inspected it kasama ko buong class and we visited the
property. Si A ang naglagay ng mali sa contract. There is meeting of the minds.
Inequitable conduct- one party was mistaken and one knew it but concealed it, instrument may be reformed.
-

Tinype ng secretary mali and nabasa ni A pero di pa rin niya na-correct

Accident- 1364. When thru ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith.
There has been meeting of minds only that the instrument does not reflect the true title
QUIETING OF TITLE

It is an equitable action in rem to determine the condition of the ownership or the rights to immovable
property, and remove doubts thereon.

Requisites:

1. plaintiff must have a legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter
of the action;
2. there must be a cloud in such title;
3. such cloud must be due to some instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
apparently valid but is in truth invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and is prejudicial to the
plaintiffs title; and
plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for
expenses that may have redounded to his benefit.
Art 1607- consolidation of ownership. Court will determine na baka equitable mortgage ito.

What are the reqts for an action for declaratory relief?

REQUISITES FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1. justiciable controversy
a. the party seeking must have legal interest in the controvery
b. between persons whose interest are adverse
c. ripe for judicial determination
there must be a right.
Declaratory relief- right and obligation are present but without delict or wrong.
Allied Broadcasting cs v Republic
The petition seeks a declaration of the unconstitutionality and/or nullity of Presidential Decree No. 576-A. As
such, it must be treated as one seeking declaratory relief under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Such an action
should be brought before the Regional Trial Court and not before the Supreme Court. A petition for
declaratory relief is not among the petitions within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
even if only questions of law are involved. 4
It is not DR bec:
a. No actual controversy involving the law sought to be annulled bec P
In the instant petition, petitioner does not seek to prohibit any proceeding being conducted
by public respondent which adversely affects its interest. Petitioner does not claim that it
has a pending application for a broadcast license which is about to be denied under Presidential
Decree No. 576-A. Apparently, what petitioner seeks to prohibit is the possible denial of an application
it may make to operate radio or television stations on the basis of the restrictions imposed by
Presidential Decree No. 576-A.
d. adverse claim between real parties in interest
in consti- locus standi- what is involved is only justiciable controversy.
e. parties must have legal interest
f.

must be ripe for judicial determination

an action for declaratory relief must be before breach

eg taxpayer suit.- but it depends.
g. Subj matter must be a deed, will, contract, other instrument
Edades v Edades case no will , no justiciable controversy
What is the purpose of the suit here?
This is an action by Pff- declaratory judgment on his alleged hereditary rights in the property of his
putative father and incidentally the recognition of his status as an illegitimate son
Is his action for DR proper under alleged hereditary right? No
1. no will, EO
2. not predicated on any justiciable issue as the right to inherit has not yet accrued bec his father is
still alive.
DECLARATORY RELIEF; ACTION TO DETERMINE HEREDITARY RIGHTS AND ESTABLISHED STATUS OF
CHILD NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF RELIEF. Plaintiff's action seeking to determine his hereditary

rights in the property of his alleged father and incidentally the recognition of his status as an illegitimate son
can not be maintained as one for declaratory relief because it neither concerns a deed, will, contract or of her
written instrument, nor does it affect a statute or ordinance, the construction or validity of which is involved.
Nor is it predicated on any justifiable controversy, for the alleged right of inheritance which plaintiff desires to
assert has not yet accrued for the simple reason that his alleged father has not yet died. And the law is clear
that "the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent" (Article 777,
new Civil Code).
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN; WHEN ACTION TO ESTABLISH STATUS AS SUCH MAY BE BROUGHT.
Although there is no express provision in the new Civil Code which prescribes the step that may be taken to
establish the status of an illegitimate child as in case of a natural child who can bring an action for recognition
(Article 285), this silence notwithstanding, a similar action may be brought under similar circumstances
considering that an illegitimate child other than natural is now given successional rights and there is need to
establish his status before such rights can be asserted and enforced. This right is impliedly recognized by
Article 289 which permits the investigation of the paternity or maternity of an illegitimate child in the same
manner as in the case of natural child.
h. Terms of the instrument or statute are of doubtful validity requiring construction or
interpretation
Kawasaki csWhat court has J to entertain action for DR?
RTC only- exclusive and original J- incapable of pecuniary estimation
Statute, ordinance unconstitutionality- can you resort to the SC directly? It is not within the original J
of SC. (orig- diplomats and prohibition, certiorari etc.)
A Phil Corp by the name of Sharp filed a complaint for injunction and DR against 79 corp alleging that there
are other corp not doing business in the Phils.
In the allegation, Japanese alleged that it is a distinct Corp fr the Pff.
CF Japan incurred obligations fr several Japanese Corp ( the 79 Defendants here)
Japan failed to pay.
Demands have been made on the Pff Corporation.
Injunction to stop the 76 corp fr demanding pyt fr obligation incurred by the Japanese Co
Motion to dismiss- best ground- lack of J
The injunction in this cs does not refer to status and property of the foreign defendant in the Phil.
The main issue in this case is whether or not private respondent's complaint for injunction and/or declaratory
relief is within the purview of the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
As defined, "Status means a legal personal relationship, not temporary in nature nor terminable at the mere
will of the parties, with which third persons and the state are concerned"
It is easy to see in the instant case, that what is sought is a declaration not only that private respondent
is a corporation for there is no dispute on that matter but also that it is separate and distinct
from C.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha and therefore, not liable for the latter's indebtedness. It is
evident that monetary obligations does not, in any way, refer to status, lights and obligations.
Obligations are more or less temporary, but status is relatively permanent. But more importantly, as
cited in the case of (Dy Poco v. Commissioner of Immigration, et al., 16 SCRA 618 [1966]), the prevailing rule
is that "where a declaratory judgment as to a disputed fact ( are you indebted or not) would be
determinative of issues rather than a construction of definite stated rights, status and other
relations, commonly expressed in written instrument, the case is not one for declaratory judgment."

Thus, considering the nature of a proceeding for declaratory judgment, wherein relief may be sought only to
declare rights and not to determine or try issues, there is more valid reason to adhere to the principle
that a declaratory relief proceeding is unavailable where judgment would have to be made, only
after a judicial investigation of disputed issues (ibid). In fact, private respondent itself perceives that
petitioners may even seek to pierce the veil of corporate identity.
Ultimate purpose of this cs: I am different and not indebted---that involves monetary matter ( not a status),
status involves something more permanent.
There can be no extraterritorial service
DR is only to construe and declare rights and not as to trial
i.

No breach

Sarmiento v Capapas no breach

1.

Whether the barter permit in question is legal or valid;

2. Whether Sec. 1 of Republic Act No. 1194 in relation to Republic Act No. 1410, permits barter of Virginia
leaf tobacco;
3.
Whether the administrator of ACCFA can issue a certificate under the law in view of the actual
and existing fact of surplusage in the production of Virginia leaf tobacco; and
4.

Whether the Virginia leaf tobacco so imported may be forfeited to the government.

DECLARATORY RELIEF; INSTITUTION OF ACTION AFTER BREACH OF CONTRACT OF STATUTE;

CASE AT BAR. The institution of an action for declaratory relief after a breach of contract or
statute, is objectionable on various grounds, among which is that it violates the rule on multiplicity
of suits. In the case at bar, if the action for declaratory relief were allowed, the judgment therein
notwithstanding, another action would still lie against the importer respondent for violation of the
barter law. So, instead of one case only before the courts in which all issues would be decided, two
cases would be allowed, one being the present action for declaratory relief and a subsequent
one for the confiscation of the importations as a consequence of the breach of the barter
law.
Why will there be multiplicity? If the action for DR is allowed, then a judgment is rendered on the
proper construction of the barter law is finished and another action will lie against the importer for the
violation of the barter law.
Gomez v Palomar
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; DECLARATORY RELIEF IS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THERE IS BREACH OF
STATUTE BEFORE FILING OF ACTION. The prime specification of an action for declaratory relief
is that it must be brought "before breach or violation" of the statute has been committed. Rule 64,
Section 1 so provides. Section 6 of the same rule, which allows the court to treat an action for declaratory
relief as an ordinary action, applies only if the breach or violation occurs after the filing of this action but
before the termination thereof. Hence, if, as the trial court itself admitted, there had been a breach of statute
before the filing of this action, then indeed the remedy of declaratory relief cannot be availed of, much less
can the suit be converted into an ordinary action.
Violation- he sent a letter without stamp- may breach na, your action ifs for PROHIBITION
j.

Justiciable controversy

Kawasaki- 199 s 230

Assign: up to Rule 65

MATALIN COCONUT CO., INC., petitioner-appellee, vs. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MALABANG, - no breach
and no objection as to the refund.
Qn: valid exercise of police power
2 reqts:
1. lawful subject- public purpose
2. lawful means- means employed must not be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, oppressive,
confiscatory
what is the purpose of the law in this cs ( as alleged by the municipality)? Welfare and health of the general
public
in this case, it is not applicable bec the police cannot determine that.
Interest of the public- equal protection
Petition for DRIssue: there is already breach- paid under protest.
DR will still prosper bec of the applicability of the Ordinance
Does a Declaratory judgment constitute res judicata?
Yes. The issues are already settled by the declaratory judgment and cannot be relitigated anew
Rule 64
Under consti bodies- there is no right to appeal.
Right to appeal is not a consti right but a statutory grant.
Rule 65- error in jurisdiction
Rule 45- error in judgment
Demurrer to evidenceMotion to dismiss in Rule 16 and Demurrer to evidence- you admit all allegations in the complaint.
-

You are not questioning the evidence. You already admitted them but is that sufficient to make that
party prove his case or entitled to his claim.

CSC- CA
COMELEC and COA decision- not appealable
Rule 64- only court you can go is with the Supreme Court
Rule 65- 60 days
The law says that the period is 30 days- statute lang yan- it can be amended by the SC- bec merely
procedural
What is procedural?
Substance- the law grants you appeal
Procedural- periods are given

Mariwasa Tiles
-

You are copying my design

Dismissed by the SC- quasi-judicial

Amended Rule 43- SC can do that

It is within power of SC to promulgate rules of procedure in court, limitation: must not affect rights,
diminish or expand such rights.

Mateo Ruling- convicted of murder, reclusion perpetua- issue: if can be passed to the CA
-

Justification- RP appeal shld be with the SC but is does not prevent an intermediate appeal.

Comment: the SC cannot confer J to CA to RP without a statute.

Proceedings in Rule 64 is same with Rule 65

Effect of filing for petition for certiorari will not stay- certiorari is not a mode of appeal ( appeal will stay the
execution)
Rule 65- certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
This was then a remedy in equity.
A petition for certiorari emanates fr a superior court that has supervision to a lower court.
When questioning J of lower court- must go 1st to the next higher court- who has supervisory power.
If you bypassed another court you must have a good reason
Does COMELEC has J on Rule 65? Yes, Sec 4 last par.
What do you mean by in aid of appellate J?
A cs is filed with the MTC, motion to dismiss on ground of lack of J was denied, can you go to the RTC on
Certiorari? Can you go to CA?
Yes, you can go to RTC.
Can CA exercise in the 1st instance in Rule 65 fr the order of the court denying a motion to dismiss to the
ground of lack of J?
It may also be filed in CA bec WON in aid of appellate J.
Does CA has J over decision rendered by MTC? No bec decision of MTC under Rule 40 appealable to RTC and
Consti SC on pure qn of law.
CA has only appellate J over decision of RTC. (BP 129 sec 9)
But in the conduct of proceedings in CA, MTC decision qn that the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.sec 9 BP 129

Can only issue writs of certiorari if it has also appellate J on the judgment of the lower court on the merits that
will rendered later---IN AID nga- tulong.
Certiorari must only be in aid of its appellate power.at
Malversation of 1 cent. Dipende kasi yan kung magkano ninakaw mo. Filed in the MTC. During trial in the MTC,
D wants cross exam of witness, object, judge sustained- there was grave abuse of discretion ( lack of due
process)
Pwd ka magcertiorari sa RTC? Yes, decision fr MTC then to SB
SB has no appellate J to MTC- no J to issue certiorari bec no appellate J to MTC
if CA- PI case filed in MTC, ayaw ng judge magcross exam. Can D go immediately on certiorari to CA? yes, bec
CA can issue this whether or not it has appellate J. ( due to its in aid of appellate J)
in aid of appellate- CA can take J on appeal fr MTC thru in aid of appellate J ( no appellate J) bec CA has J to
RTC.
When SC made judicial legislation cannot file certiorari bec it is not judicial or quasi-judicial fn
Promulgating rules and procedure is not a judicial fn but a LEGISLATIVE fn. ( gumawa sila ng law eh)
Then what shld you file? Petition for Prohibition-

You are now prohibiting them fr IMPLEMENTING what they legislated- this is enforcement already
which is an ADMINISTRATIVE fn covered by Prohibition.

Where do you file Rule 65 on decisions of quasi-judicial body?

COMELEC- in the conduct of election: QN: hindi ganyan ang law, dapat daan pa ng board of canvassers. Can
you file it in the SC?
Sec 4 Rule 65- the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable ONLY by the CA.
Fn of the COMELEC is administrative, why? As a rule the primary repository of exe power is vested with the
exe but bec of consti has taken out one exe fn which is the exe fn in the conduct of election.
What is the reason? Pres is a political animal and so that he will not use his influence.
COMELEC has exe power to implement election laws.
However, Consti does not confer exe power to the COMELEC but also quasi-judicial power.
Lets go to Rule 64- Sec 1 quasi-judicial only: judgment and final order (kasi)
There is no controversy in the case- go to certiorari in Consti- Art ix-A basis why you can go to SC
Can you go to RTC? Yes. RULE 65- CA COMELEC and COA in the exercise of quasi-judicial fn, can go to RTC.
Sec 4.
If the exe in the exercise of exe fn, can you go to RTC on prohibition? Yes bec RTC exercises judicial power. EXE
implementing the law- admin fn
RTC can exercise power of judicial review- yes, bec it is a court

Tanada v Tuvera- went to SC to qn the implementation of law that were not published- that is implementationyou can go to RTC but di mo ginawa un bec of transcendental significance.
PAg-ibig issued rules and reg, among these involves exceptions of er- if er already granting benefits over and
above given by Pag-ibig and housing benefit.
Chinabank qnd it sa Pag-ibig, bakit and yan dapat or yan.
SC- issue: J of RTC, shld be with CA- held; wrong- when Pagibig issued it it was not in the exercise judicial fn
but ministerial fn.