Plan de desarrollo de GE

Governed by rules for ordinary civil actions Generally governed by rules for ordinary civil actions but subject to special rules

Must be based on a cause of action meaning an act or omission has violated the rights of another

Not necessarily such as in certain special civil actions:

1. Declaratory relief no actual violation of rights 2. Interpleader no interest in the subject matter

May be filed initially in either the MTC or RTC depending upon the jurisdiction amount or the nature of the action.

There are some special civil actions which cannot be commenced in the MTC, i.e. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

Ordinary civil actions are filed as complaints.

Some special civil actions are filed as complaints, but others are filed as petitions

3. Jurisdiction and venue

Venue is governed by the general rules on venue, except as otherwise indicated in the particular rules for special civil actions.

Special civil actions within the jurisdiction of first level courts:

1. quieting of title if the assessed value is within its jurisdiction 2. partition, if the assessed value is within its jurisdiction (Russel vs.

Vestil, March 17, 1999)

3. ejectment suits (Rule 70) 4. contempt (Rule 71)

4. Interpleader (Rule 62) Definition

A remedy whereby a person who has property in his possession or has an obligation to render wholly or partially,

without claiming any right in both,

comes to court and asks that the defendants who have made conflicting claims upon the same property or who consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with the obligation

be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine who is entitled to the property or payment of the obligation (Beltran vs. PHHC, 1969).

Purpose

To compel conflicting claimants to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves (R62S1)

To protect a person not against double liability but against a double vexation in respect of one’s liability (Beltran vs. PHHC)

a. Requisites for interpleader

1) The plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter or, his claim is not disputed;

2) There must at least be two (2) or more CONFLICTING CLAIMANTS;

3) The parties to be interpleaded must make effective claims; and 4) The subject matter must be one and the same and derived from the same source. (Feria, (2001) Civil Procedure Annotated,Vol.2, p.425)

b. When to file

1. Interpleader was found to be a proper action in an action by a lessee who does not know to whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the property (Pagkalinawan v. Rodas, 80 Phil. 281 [1948]) and in an action by a bank where the purchaser of a cashier’s check claims it was lost and another has presented it for payment. (Mesina v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L 70145, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 497).

2. It was however found to be improper in an action where defendants had conflicting claims against the plaintiff; (Beltran v. Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation, No. L 25138, August 28, 1969, 29 SCRA 145) in an action where one of the defendants

had earlier sued the plaintiff and secured a judgment against him which has already become final, the action being barred by laches or unreasonable delay; (Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Won, No. L 23851, March 26; 1976, 70 SCRA 165.) and in an action where there are non conflicting claims among the defendants, their respective claims being separate and distinct from each other. Hence, the complaint for interpleader may be dismissed for lack of cause of action. (Vda. De Camilo vs. Aranio, L 15653, September 29, 1961.)

3. An interpleader is commenced to protect a party, not against double liability, but against double vexation on account of one liability

4. The parties in an interpleader action may file counterclaims, cross claims, third party complaints and responsive pleadings in the same action, as provided in the second paragraph of Section 5 of Rule 62 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in the interest of a

complete adjudication of the controversy and its incidents. (Arreza

v. Diaz, Jr., GR No. 133113, August 30, 2001)

Procedural Features

1. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another. (Rule 62, Sec. 2)

2. The court may direct in the same order mentioned in the preceding paragraph that the subject matter of the suit be paid or delivered to the court.

3. The summons shall be accompanied by copies of the complaint and order. 4. The defendants may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of the impropriety of the interpleader action or on other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16. 5. The defendants shall serve a copy of the answer not only on the plaintiff but also on their co defendants who may file their reply thereto.

6. The effect of a failure to plead within the prescribed period is that, upon motion, the defendant will be declared in default and thereafter, the Court renders judgment barring him from any claim in respect of the subject matter.

5. Declaratory Reliefs and Similar Remedies (Rule 63) a. Who may file the action

Rule 63, Section 1. Who may file petition.

Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, 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.

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.

Procedural Features

1. The petition must be filed before there is a breach of contract or violation of the statute of ordinance. (Rule 63, Sec. 1)

2. A third party complaint is not allowed. (Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel, No. L 21036, June 30, 1977, 77 SCRA 459) )

3. Except in actions for quieting of title, the courts action in an action for declaratory relief is discretionary. Thus, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to 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 under the circumstances. (Rule 63, Sec. 5)

4. When a statute, executive order or any government regulation or ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor General should be notified by the party assailing the same. (Rule 63, Sec. 3)

5. If the validity of a local government ordinance is in question, the prosecutor or attorney of the local government should be notified. (Rule 63, Sec. 3)

6. A compulsory counterclaim is allowed. (Visayan Packing Corp. v. Reparations Commission, GR No. L 29673, November 12, 1987)

7. When there is a breach of contract or violation of a statute or ordinance before the final termination of the case, the case is converted into an ordinary action. (Rule 63, Section 6)

b. Requisites of action for declaratory relief

1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation or ordinance; (Rule 63, Section 1)

2. There must be a justiciable controversy (Obiles v. Republic, 92 Phil. 864 [1953]) 3. The controversy must be between persons whose interest is adverse

4. The parties must have legal interest in the controversy

5. The controversy must be ripe for judicial determination (Board of Optometry v. Colet, G.R. No. 122241, July 30, 1996, 260 SCRA 88)

6. The petition must be filed before there is a breach or violation. (Rule 63, Sec. 1.)

A petition for declaratory relief is ripe for judicial determination if there is a threatened litigation in the immediate future, which litigation is imminent and inevitable unless prevented by the declaratory relief sought. (Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy GR No. L 362, September 28, 1951).

c. When court may refuse to make judicial declaration

Rule 63, Sec. 5. Court action discretionary.

Except in actions falling under the 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 to 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.

Declaratory Relief Improper in the Following Cases:

1. to obtain judicial declaration of citizenship (Dy Poco v. Commissioner of Immigration, No. L 22313, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 615; Singson vs. Republic, No. L 21855, January 30, 1968, 22 SCRA 353) ;

2. to determine the validity or construction to be placed on a registration certificate (Obiles v. Republic, supra.)

3. to seek relief on moot questions or to resolve hypothetical, abstract or theoretical questions, or to decide claims which are uncertain (Lim v. Republic, No. L 29535, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 783) ;

4. to resolve political issues or questions (Dela Llana v. Commission on Elections, No. L 47245, December 9, 1977, 80 SCRA 525)

5. to test the correctness or validity of a court decision (Tanda v. Aldaya, 52 O.G. No. 11,5175 (September 15, 1956)

6. to determine hereditary rights (Edades v. Edades, 52 O.G. No. 11, 5149 (September 15, 1956)

7. when the petition is based upon the happening of a contingent event;

8. when the petitioner is not the real party in interest (Santos v. Aquino, 94 Phil. 65 [1953])

9. when administrative remedies have not yet been exhausted. (Ollada v. Central Bank, No. L 11357, May 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 297)

10. when the action purports to be a declaratory relief allegedly because the terms of certain ordinances were ambiguous but is, in reality, a petition for the declaration of nullity of these ordinances. (Santos vs. Aquino ,the Municipal Council of Malabon, G.R. No. L5101, November 28, 1953)

11. when judgment would have to be made, only after a judicial investigation of the disputed issues rather than a construction of definite stated rights, status and other relations, commonly expressed in written instruments. In this case, what was sought was the declaration that the private respondent was a corporation and that it was separate and distinct from C.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha and that, therefore, it was not liable for the latters indebtedness (Kawasaki Port Service Corp. v. Amores, GR No. L 58340 ,July 16, 1991).

Even when the action is for a declaratory judgment, the court may grant such affirmative relief as may be warranted by the evidence when the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to make out a case for specific performance or recovery of property with claims for damages, and the defendants did not raise an issue in the trial court to challenge the remedy or the form of the action availed of. (Adlawan v. IAC, G.R. No. 73022 February 9, 1989 )

A third party complaint is not proper when the main case is for a declaratory relief. This is because in a third party complaint, the defendant or third party plaintiff is supposed to seek contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief from the third party defendant in respect of the claim of the plaintiff against him. (Customs v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L 21036 June 30, 1977)

The non joinder of persons who may claim interest which may be affected by a declaratory judgment is not a jurisdictional defect, as Section 2 of Rule 63 provides that said declaration shall not prejudice their interests, unless otherwise provided in the Rules of Court. (Baguio Citizens Action, Inc. v The City Council, etc. of Baguio City, L 27247, April 20, 1983)

d. Conversion to ordinary action

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.

e. Proceedings considered as similar remedies A. Reformation of an instrument

For an action for reformation of instrument to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract; (2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties; and (3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident. (Emilio vs. Rapal, G.R. No. 181855, 2010 March 30, 2010)

B. Consolidation of ownership

It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale.

As such, he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. No such bond is required after the redemption period if the property is not redeemed. Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court. (BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc., G.R. No. 176019, January 12, 2011 citing China Banking Corporation v. Lozada, G.R. No. 164919, 4 July 2008, 557 SCRA 177, citing IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance Corporation v. Nera, 125 Phil. 595 [1967].)

C. Quieting of title to real property

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. (Eland Philippines, Inc. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 173289, February 2010.)

Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the absence of such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be prevented or removed. (Mananquil vs. Moico, G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012)

DECLARATORY RELIEF