Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/319783106/2011-Remedial-Law-Reviewer-Special-Civil-Actions-The-Greenhorn-Philosopher
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 15:04:38
Document Index: 356594339

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1311', 'Art. 1607', 'Art. 1359', 'Art. 1363', 'Art. 1365', 'Art. 1359', 'Art. 1666', 'Art. 1607', 'Art. 1619', 'Art. 1601', 'Art. 1620', 'Art.\n1621', 'Art. 1606', 'Art. 1607', 'Art.\n1607', 'Art. 476', 'Art. 477', 'Art. 1953', 'Art. 2124', 'Art. 494', 'Art.\n494', 'Art. 494', 'Art. 495', 'Art. 1084', 'Art. 494']

2011 Remedial Law Reviewer (Special Civil Actions) | The Greenhorn Philosopher | Certiorari | Mandamus
saveSave 2011 Remedial Law Reviewer (Special Civil Actions)... For Later
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (Rules 62 71)
Although both types of actions are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, there are
certain rules that are applicable only to specific special civil actions (Sec. 3[a], Rule 1). The fact that an
action is subject to special rules other than those applicable to ordinary civil actions is what makes a
civil action special.
(2) An ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action (Sec. 1, Rule 2). This means that the
defendant must have performed an act or omitted to do an act in violation of the rights of another
(Sec. 2, Rule 2). These definitions do not fit the requirements of a cause of action in certain special civil
actions. The cause of action as defined and required of an ordinary civil action finds no application to
the special civil action of declaratory declaratory relief. In finds no application also in a complaint for
interpleader. In this action, the plaintiff may file a complaint even if he has sustained no actual
transgression of his rights. In fact, he actually has no interest in the subject matter of the action. This is
not so in an ordinary civil action.
Ordinary civil actions may be filed initially in either the MTC of the RTC depending upon the
jurisdictional amount or the nature of the action involved. On the other hand, there are special civil
actions which can only be filed in an MTC like the actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
There are also special civil actions which cannot be commenced in the MTC, foremost of which are
the petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
The venue in ordinary civil actions is determined by either the residence of the parties where
the action is personal or by the location of the property where the action is real. This dichotomy does
not always apply to a special civil action. For instance, the venue in a petition for quo warranto iw
where the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals sits if the petition is commenced in any of these
courts and without taking into consideration where the parties reside. It is only when the petition is
lodged with the RTC that the residence is considered in venue analysis. While in ordinary civil
actions the residences of both the plaintiff and the defendant are factored in the determination, a
petition for quo warranto failed in the RTC merely looks into the residence of the respondent, not that
of the petitioner. But if it is the Solicitor General who commences the action, another special rule is
followed because the petition may only be commenced in the RTC in Manila, in the Court of Appeals
or in the Supreme Court.
While ordinary civil actions when filed are denominated as complaints, some special civil
actions are not denominated as such but petitions.
Special civil actions initiated by filing of a Petition:
1. Declaratory relief other than similar remedies;
2. Review of adjudication of the COMELEC and COA;
3. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus;
4. Quo warranto; and
Special civil actions initiated by filing of a Complaint:
Foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
The subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief raises issues which are not capable of
pecuniary estimation and must be filed with the Regional Trial Court (Sec. 19[1], BP 129; Sec. 1, Rule
63). It would be error to file the petition with the Supreme Court which has no original jurisdiction to
entertain a petition for declaratory relief (Untied Residents of Dominican Hill vs. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems, 353 SCRA 782; Ortega vs. Quezon City Government, 469 SCRA 388).
Interpleader (Rule 62)
(1) Interpleader is a person who has property in his possession or an obligation to render, wholly or
partially without claiming any right therein, or an interest in which in whole or in part is not
disputed by the claimants, comes to court and asks that the persons who consider themselves entitled
to demand compliance with the obligation be required to litigate among themselves in order to
determine finally who is entitled to the same.
Interpleader is a special civil action filed by a person against whom two conflicting claims are
made upon the same subject matter and over which he claims no interest, to compel the claimants to
interplead and to litigate their conflicting claims among themselves (Sec. 1).
Requisites for interpleader
There must be two or more claimants with adverse or conflicting interests to a property in the
custody or possession of the plaintiff;
The plaintiff in an action for interpleader has no claim upon the subject matter of the adverse
claims or if he has an interest at all, such interest is not disputed by the claimants;
The subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and the same; and
The parties impleaded must make effective claims.
Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person
(1) Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person
who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not
disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to
interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves (Sec. 1).
Declaratory Reliefs and Similar Remedies (Rule 63)
(1) An action for declaratory relief is brought to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a contract or a statute for their guidance in the enforcement or
compliance with the same (Meralco vs. Philippine Consumers Foundation, 374 SCRA 262). Thus, the
purpose is to seek for a judicial interpretation of an instrument or for a judicial declaration of a
persons rights under a statute and not to ask for affirmative reliefs like injunction, damages or any
other relief beyond the purpose of the petition as declared under the Rules.
Contract or other written instrument;
Executive order or regulation;
Any other governmental regulation (Sec. 1).
(3) The petition for declaratory relief is filed before there occurs any breach or violation of the deed,
contract, statute, ordinance or executive order or regulation. It will not prosper when brought after a
contract or a statute has already been breached or violated. If there has already been a breach, the
appropriate ordinary civil action and not declaratory relief should be filed.
Who may file the action
(1) 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 other governmental regulation
may before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the RTC to determine any question of
construction or validity arising and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder (Sec. 1).
(2) Those who may sue under the contract should be those with interest under the contract like the
parties, the assignees and the heirs as required by substantive law (Art. 1311, Civil Code).
(3) If it be a statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance, the petitioner is one whose rights are
affected by the same (Sec. 1, Rule 63). The other parties are all persons who have or claim any interest
which would be affected by the declaration. The rights of person not made parties to the action do
not stand to be prejudiced by the declaration (Sec. 2).
Requisites of action for declaratory relief
(1) The subject matter must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive
order or regulation or ordinance;
The terms of said document or the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
There must be actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one( there is threatened
litigation the immediate future); there must be allegation of any threatened, imminent and inevitable
violation of petitioners right sought to be prevented by the declaratory relief sought;
The controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse;
The issue must be ripe for judicial determination e.g. administrative remedies already
The party seeking the relief has legal interest in the controversy; and
Adequate relief is not available thru other means.
Stated otherwise, the requisites are:
There must be a justiciable controversy;
The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
The party seeking the relief must have legal interest in the controversy; and
The issue is ripe for judicial determination (Republic vs. Orbecido III, 472 SCRA 114).
When court may refuse to make judicial declaration
(1) Grounds for the court to refuse to exercise declaratory relief;
The declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the circumstances as when
the instrument or the statute has already been breached (Sec. 5).
In declaratory relief, the court is given the discretion to act or not to act on the petition. It may
therefore choose not to construe the instrument sought to be construed or could refrain from
declaring the rights of the petitioner under the deed or the law. A refusal of the court to declare rights
or construe an instrument is actually the functional equivalent of the dismissal of the petition.
(5) On the other hand, the court does not have the discretion to refuse to act with respect to actions
described as similar remedies. Thus, in an action for reformation of an instrument, to quiet or to
consolidate ownership, the court cannot refuse to render a judgment (Sec. 5).
Conversion to ordinary action
If before final termination of the case, a breach should take place, the action may be converted
into ordinary action to avoid multiplicity of suits (Republic vs. Orbecido, G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005).
Ordinary civil action plaintiff alleges that his right has been violated by the defendant;
judgment rendered is coercive in character; a writ of execution may be executed against the defeated
Special civil action of declaratory relief an impending violation is sufficient to file a
declaratory relief; no execution may be issued; the court merely makes a declaration.
Proceedings considered as similar remedies
Similar remedies are:
Action for reformation of an instrument;
Action for quieting of title; and
Action to consolidate ownership (Art. 1607, Civil Code).
It is not an action brought to reform a contract but to reform the instrument evidencing the
contract. It presupposes that there is nothing wrong with the contract itself because there is a meeting
of minds between the parties. The contract is to be reformed because despite the meeting of minds of
the parties as to the object and cause of the contract, the instrument which is supposed to embody the
agreement of the parties does not reflect their true agreement by reason of mistake, inequitable
conduct or accident. The action is brought so the true intention of the parties may be expressed in the
instrument (Art. 1359, CC).
(2) The instrument may be reformed if it does not express the true intention of the parties because
of lack of skill of the person drafting the instrument (Art. 1363, CC). If the parties agree upon the
mortgage or pledge of property, but the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with
a right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper (Art. 1365, CC).
Where the consent of a party to a contract has been procured by fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, and an instrument was executed by the parties in accordance with the contract, what is
defective is the contract itself because of vitiation of consent. The remedy is not to bring an action for
reformation of the instrument but to file an action for annulment of the contract (Art. 1359, CC).
Reformation of the instrument cannot be brought to reform any of the following:
Simple donation inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
When the agreement is void (Art. 1666, CC).
The concept of consolidation of ownership under Art. 1607, Civil Code, has its origin in the
substantive provisions of the law on sales. Under the law, a contract of sale may be extinguished
either by legal redemption (Art. 1619) or conventional redemption (Art. 1601). Legal redemption
(retracto legal) is a statutory mandated redemption of a property previously sold. For instance, a coowner of a property may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners
or any of them are sold to a third person (Art. 1620). The owners of adjoining lands shall have the
right of redemption when a piece of rural land with a size of one hectare or less is alienated (Art.
1621). Conventional redemption (pacto de retro) sale is one that is not mandated by the statute but
one which takes place because of the stipulation of the parties to the sale. The period of redemption
may be fixed by the parties in which case the period cannot exceed ten (10) years from the date of the
contract. In the absence of any agreement, the redemption period shall be four (4) years from the date
of the contract (Art. 1606). When the redemption is not made within the period agreed upon, in case
the subject matter of the sale is a real property, Art. 1607 provides that the consolidation of ownership
in the vendee shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, after the
vendor has been duly heard.
The action brought to consolidate ownership is not for the purpose of consolidating the
ownership of the property in the person of the vendee or buyer but for the registration of the
property. The lapse of the redemption period without the seller a retro exercising his right of
redemption, consolidates ownership or title upon the person of the vendee by operation of law. Art.
1607 requires the filing of the petition to consolidate ownership because the law precludes the
registration of the consolidated title without judicial order (Cruz vs. Leis, 327 SCRA 570).
Quieting of title to real property
This action is brought to remove a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein. The
action contemplates a situation where the instrument or a record is apparently valid or effective but is
in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title
to real property. This action is then brought to remove a cloud on title to real property or any interest
therein. It may also be brought as a preventive remedy to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title
to real property or any interest therein (Art. 476).
The plaintiff need not be in possession of the real property before he may bring the action as
long as he can show that he has a legal or an equitable title to the property which is the subject matter
of the action (Art. 477).
Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolution of the COMELEC and COA (Rule 64)
(1) A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on
Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65 (Sec.
2). The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment or final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the SC directs otherwise upon such terms as it may deem
just (Sec. 8). To prevent the execution of the judgment, the petitioner should obtain a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction because the mere filing of a petition does not
interrupt the course of the principal case.
(2) Decisions of the Civil Service Commission shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals which has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all judgments or final orders of such commission (RA 7902).
The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said
judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission
concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may
file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any
event, reckoned from notice of denial (Sec. 3).
Note that petition for review from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies to the CA should be
within 15 days and does not stay the decision appealed. Petition for review from decisions of the RTC
decided in its appellate jurisdiction filed to the CA should be filed within 15 days and stays execution,
unless the case is under the rules of Summary Procedure. Special civil actions of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus, from Comelec and COA should be filed within 30 days, and does not
stay the decision appealed. Bottomline: Decisions of quasi-judicial bodies are not stayed by appeal
alone. Decisions of regular courts are stayed on appeal. Although in petition for review on certiorari
to the SC via Rule 45, there is no express provision on effect of appeal on execution.
The not less than 5 days provision for filing a pleading applies only to:
filing an answer after a denial of a MtD;
filing an answer after denial or service of a bill of particulars;
(c) filing an special civil action for certiorari from a decision of the Comelec or CoA after denial of a
MfR or MNT. It does not apply to filing appeal from decisions of other entities after denial of a MfR
or MNT. In such cases, either the parties have a fresh 15 days, or the balance.
Application of Rule 65 under Rule 64
(1) Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution reads, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by
law, any decision, order or ruling of each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. The provision was
interpreted by the Supreme Court to refer to certiorari under Rule 65 and not appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251; Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84). To implement the
above constitutional provision, the SC promulgated Rule 64.
Distinction in the application of Rule 65 to judgments of the COMELEC and COA and the
application of Rule 65 to other tribunals, persons and officers
Directed only to the judgments, final orders or
resolutions of the COMELEC and COA;
Directed to any tribunal, board or
officers exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions;
Filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment;
Filed within 60 days from notice of
The filing of a motion for reconsideration or a motion
for new trial if allowed, interrupts the period for the
filing of the petition for certiorari. If the motion is
denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition
within the remaining period, but which shall not be
less than 5 days reckoned from the notice of denial.
The period within which to filed the
petition if the motion for
reconsideration or new trial is
denied, is 60 days from notice of the
denial of the motion.
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65)
(1) Certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. It is an
original and independent action that was not part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the
judgment or order complained of. More importantly, sine the issue is jurisdiction, an original action
for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from
the judgment (New Frontier Sugar Corp. vs. RTC of Iloilo, GR 165001, Jan. 31, 2007).
(2) Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of law or fact which is a mistake of judgment, the
proper remedy should be appeal. Hence, if there was no question of jurisdiction involved in the
decision and what was being questioned was merely the findings in the decision of whether or not
the practice of the other party constitutes a violation of the agreement, the matter is a proper subject
of appeal, not certiorari (Centro Escolar University Faculty and Allieid Workers Union vs. CA, GR 165486,
May 31, 2006).
Filing of petition for certiorari does not interrupt the course of the principal action nor the
running of the reglementary periods involved in the proceeding, unless an application for a
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction to the appellate court is granted (Sec. 7). Neither
does it interrupt the reglementary period for the filing of an answer nor the course of the case where
there is no writ of injunction (People vs. Almendras, 401 SCRA 555).
In a summary proceeding, petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against an
interlocutory order of the court are not allowed (Sec. 19, RRSP).
Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is
available but was lost through fault or negligence. The remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on
the merits is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the lower court is its lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of
discretion. The existence and availability of the right to appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because
one of the requirements for certiorari is that there is no appeal (Bugarin vs. Palisoc, GR 157985, Dec. 5,
(6) Exceptions to the rule that certiorari is not available when the period for appeal has lapsed and
certiorari may still be invoked when appeal is lost are the following:
Appeal was lost without the appellants negligence;
When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates;
When the broader interest of justice so requires;
When the writs issued are null and void; and
(e) When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority (Chua vs. CA,
344 SCRA 136).
Certiorari is an extraordinary
writ annulling or modifying
the proceedings of a tribunal,
board or officer exercising
Prohibition is an
commanding a tribunal,
corporation, board or
person, whether exercising
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ
corporation, board or person, to do
an act required to be done:
functions when such tribunal,
board or officer has acted
without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave
to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, there being no
appeal or any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law
(Sec. 1, Rule 65).
judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions, to
desist from further
proceedings when said
proceedings are without or
in excess of its jurisdiction,
or with abuse of its
discretion, there being no
speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary
course of law (Sec. 2, Rule
Directed against a person
exercising to judicial or quasijudicial functions
exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions, or
exercising ministerial duties
Object is to correct
Object is to prevent
Object is to compel
Purpose is to annul or modify
Purpose is to stop the
Purpose is to compel performance
of the act required and to collect
Person or entity must have
acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave
acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction, or with
Person must have neglected a
ministerial duty or excluded
another from a right or office
(a) When he unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a
duty, and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law; or
(b) When one unlawfully
excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to
which the other is entitled (Sec. 3,
Always the main action
May be the main action or just a provisional
Directed against a court, a tribunal exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions
Directed against a party
Ground must be the court acted without or in
Does not involve a question of jurisdiction
To prevent an act by a respondent
To compel an act desired
May be directed against entities exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial, or ministerial
May be directed against judicial and nonjudicial entities
Extends to discretionary functions
Extends only to ministerial functions
Clarifies legal duties, not legal titles
Clarifies who has legal title to the office, or
Respondent, without claiming any right to the
office, excludes the petitioner
Respondent usurps the office
That the petition is directed
against a tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
The petition is directed against
a tribunal, corporation, board
or person exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial, or ministerial
The plaintiff has a clear legal
right to the act demanded;
The tribunal, board or officer
has acted without, or in
excess of jurisdiction or with
to lack or excess or
The tribunal, corporation,
board or person must have
jurisdiction or with grave
to lack of jurisdiction;
It must be the duty of the
defendant to perform the act,
which is ministerial and not
discretionary, because the same
is mandated by law;
There is no appeal or any
plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course
The defendant unlawfully
neglects the performance of the
duty enjoined by law;
Accompanied by a certified
true copy of the judgment or
order subject of the petition,
documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and sworn
certification of non-forum
shopping under Rule 46.
There is no appeal or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in
(1) The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may
also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the
rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been
issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case (Sec. 7).
(2) The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing
of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to
proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge (AM 07-7-12-SC, Dec.
Certiorari distinguished from Appeal by Certiorari; Prohibition and Mandamus distinguished
from Injunction; when and where to file petition
Certiorari as a Mode of Appeal (Rule 45)
Certiorari as a Special Civil Action (Rule
Called petition for review on certiorari, is a
mode of appeal, which is but a continuation
of the appellate process over the original
A special civil action that is an original
action and not a mode of appeal, and not a
part of the appellate process but an
Seeks to review final judgments or final
May be directed against an interlocutory
order of the court or where not appeal or
plain or speedy remedy available in the
ordinary course of law
Raises only questions of law;
Raises questions of jurisdiction because a
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Filed within 15 days from notice of judgment
or final order appealed from, or of the denial
of petitioners motion for reconsideration or
Filed not later than 60 days from notice of
judgment, order or resolution sought to be
assailed and in case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, the
60 day period is counted from notice of
denial of said motion;
Extension of 30 days may be granted for
Extension no longer allowed;
Does not require a prior motion for
Motion for Reconsideration is a condition
precedent, subject to exceptions
Stays the judgment appealed from;
Does not stay the judgment or order subject
of the petition unless enjoined or restrained;
Parties are the original parties with the
appealing party as the petitioner and the
adverse party as the respondent without
impleading the lower court or its judge;
The tribunal, board, officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions is
impleaded as respondent
Filed with only the Supreme Court
May be filed with the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or Regional
SC may deny the decision motu propio on the
ground that the appeal is without merit, or is
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the
questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration.
The antithetic character of appeal and certiorari has been generally recognized and observed save only
on those rare instances when appeal is satisfactorily shown to be an inadequate remedy. Thus, a
petitioner must show valid reasons why the issues raised in his petition for certiorari could not have
been raised on appeal (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. CA, 334 SCRA 305).
Prohibition and Mandamus distinguished from Injunction; when and where to file petition
corporation, board or person,
whether exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions, to desist from
further proceedings when
said proceedings are without
or in excess of its jurisdiction,
Mandamus is an
to do an act required to be
Main action for injunction
seeks to enjoin the defendant
from the commission or
continuance of a specific act,
or to compel a particular act
the applicant. Preliminary
injunction is a provisional
remedy to preserve the status
quo and prevent future
wrongs in order to preserve
and protect certain interests
or rights during the pendency
When he unlawfully
neglects the performance of
an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty,
and there is no other plain,
in the ordinary course of law;
(Sec. 2, Rule 65).
To prevent an encroachment,
excess, usurpation or
assumption of jurisdiction;
To compel the performance of
a ministerial and legal duty;
For the defendant either to
refrain from an act or to
perform not necessarily a
legal and ministerial duty;
May be directed against
entities exercising judicial or
Extends to discretionary
Extends only to ministerial
Does not necessarily extend
to ministerial, discretionary
or legal functions;
May be the main action or
just a provisional remedy
May be brought in the
Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or
in the Regional Trial Court
the territorial area where
Regional Trial Court which
has jurisdiction over the
territorial area where
When one unlawfully
excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or
office to which the other is
entitled (Sec. 3, Rule 65).
Exceptions to filing of motion for reconsideration before filing petition
(1) When the issue is one purely of law;
When there is urgency to decide upon the question and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the government or of the petitioner;
Where the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(4) When order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction or there was no due
(5) When questions have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court;
(6) When is urgent necessity for the resolution of the question;
(7) When Motion for Reconsideration would be useless, e.g. the court already indicated it would deny
any Motion for Reconsideration;
(8) In a criminal case, where relief from order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the
trial court is improbable;
(9) Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object;
(10) When petitioner is deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for urgent relief; and
(11) When issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved;
Reliefs petitioner is entitled to
The primary relief will be annulment or modification of the judgment, order or resolution or
proceeding subject of the petition. It may also include such other incidental reliefs as law and justice
may require (Sec. 1). The court, in its judgment may also award damages and the execution of the
award for damages or costs shall follow the procedure in Sec. 1, Rule 39 (Sec. 9).
Where to file petition
Subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
and only when compelling reasons exist for
not filing the same with the lower courts
If the petition relates to an act or an omission
of an MTC, corporation, board, officer or
Court of Appeals only
If the petition involves an act or an omission
of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
provided by law or rules
Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan
Whether or not in aid of appellate
In election cases involving an act or an
omission of an MTC or RTC
As amended by AM No. 07-7-12-SC, Dec. 12,
A petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds because as long as the
respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will
amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected by appeal
(Microsoft Corp. vs. Best Deal Computer Center Corp., GR 148029, Sept. 24, 2002; Estrera vs. CA, GR
154235, Aug. 16, 2006).
Effects of filing of an unmeritorious petition
The Court may impose motu propio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or
measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory an unmeritorious petition for certiorari (AM 07-7-12SC, Dec. 12, 2007). The court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit or
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration. In such event, the court may award in favor of the respondent treble costs solidarily
against the petitioner and counsel, in addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under
Rules 139 and 139-B.
Quo Warranto (Rule 66)
Quo warranto is a demand made by the state upon some individual or corporation to show by
what right they exercise some franchise or privilege appertaining to the state which, according to the
Constitution and laws they cannot legally exercise by virtue of a grant and authority from the State
(44 Am. Jur. 88-89).
It is a special civil action commenced by a verified petition against (a) a person who usurps a
public office, position or franchise; (b) a public officer who performs an act constituting forfeiture of a
public office; or (c) an association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being
legally incorporated or without lawful authority to do so (Sec. 1).
Distinguish from Quo Warranto in the Omnibus Election Code
Quo Warranto (Election Code)
Subject of the petition is in relation to an
appointive office;
The issue is the legality of the occupancy of
the office by virtue of a legal appointment;
Grounds relied upon are: (a) ineligibility to
the position; or (b) disloyalty to the
Petition is brought either to the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or the Regional
May be instituted with the COMELEC by
any voter contesting the election of any
member of Congress, regional, provincial or
city officer; or to the MeTC, MTC or MCTC if
against any barangay official;
Filed within one (1) year from the time the
cause of ouster, or the right of the petitioner
Filed within ten (10) days after the
proclamation of the results of the election;
to hold the office or position arose;
Petitioner is the person entitled to the office;
Petitioner may be any voter even if he is not
entitled to the office;
The court has to declare who the person
entitled to the office is if he is the petitioner.
When the tribunal declares the candidateelect as ineligible, he will be unseated but
the person occupying the second place will
not be declared as the one duly elected
because the law shall consider only the
person who, having duly filed his certificate
of candidacy, received a plurality of votes.
When government commence an action against individuals
(1) Quo warranto is commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines by the Solicitor General, or in some instances, by a public prosecutor
(Secs. 2 and 3). When the action is commenced by the Solicitor General, the petition may be brought in
the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (Sec. 7).
An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a
verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines thru the Solicitor General
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground
for the forfeiture of his office;
An association which acts a corporation within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority so to act (Sec. 1).
When individual may commence an action
The petition may be commenced by a private person in his own name where he claims to be
entitled to the public office or position alleged to have been usurped or unlawfully held or exercised
by another (Sec. 5). Accordingly, the private person may maintain the action without the intervention
of the Solicitor General and without need for any leave of court (Navarro vs. Gimenez, 10 Phil. 226; Cui
vs. Cui, 60 Phil. 37). In bringing a petition for quo warranto, he must show that he has a clear right to
the office allegedly being held by another (Cuevas vs. Bacal, 347 SCRA 338). It is not enough that he
merely asserts the right to be appointed to the office.
Judgment in Quo Warranto action
When the respondent is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or
exercising a public office, position or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent be
ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or relator, as the case may be,
recover his costs. Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to
the public office, position or franchise of the parties to the action as justice requires (Sec. 9).
Rights of a person adjudged entitled to public office
If the petitioner is adjudged to be entitled to the office, he may sue for damages against the
alleged usurper within one (1) year from the entry of judgment establishing his right to the office in
question (Sec. 11).
Expropriation (Rule 67)
Expropriation is an exercise of the States power of eminent domain wherein the government
takes a private property for public purpose upon payment of just compensation.
Matters to allege in complaint for expropriation
An expropriation proceeding is commenced by the filing of a verified complaint which shall:
State with certainty the right of the plaintiff to expropriation and the purpose thereof;
Describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated; and
Join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part of the
property or interest therein showing as far as practicable the interest of each defendant. If the plaintiff
cannot with accuracy identify the real owners, averment to that effect must be made in the complaint
(Sec. 1).
Two stages in every action for expropriation
(1) Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to expropriate this includes an inquiry into the
propriety of the expropriation, its necessity and the public purpose. This stage will end in the
issuance of an order of expropriation if the court finds for the plaintiff or in the dismissal of the
complaint if it finds otherwise.
(2) Determination of just compensation through the court-appointed commissioners (National Power
Corporation vs. Joson, 206 SCRA 520).
When plaintiff can immediately enter into possession of the real property, in relation to RA 8974
Except for the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government
infrastructure project through expropriation, the expropriator shall have the right to take or enter
upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government
depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be
held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu
thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the
Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government depositary (Sec. 2, Rule 67).
New system of immediate payment of initial just compensation
For the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure
project through expropriation, upon the filing of the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to
the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount
equivalent to the sum of (1) 100 percent of the value of the property based on the current relevant
zonal valuation of the BIR; and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined
under Sec. 7 of RA 8974 (Sec. 4, RA 8974).
Omnibus Motion Rule Subject to the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 9, a motion attacking a
pleading, order, judgment or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections
not so included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8, Rule 15).
(2) If a defendant has no objection or defense to the action or the taking of his property, he may file
and serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or
identifying the property in which he claims to be interested, within the time stated in the summons.
Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same.
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or
defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons.
The answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an interest,
state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the
taking of his property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or
allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the court, in the interest of justice,
may permit amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof.
However, at the trial of the issue of just compensation, whether or not a defendant has previously
appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for
his property, and he may share in the distribution of the award (Sec. 3)..
Order of Expropriation
(1) If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property
are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an
order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be
expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just
compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the
complaint, whichever came first.
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any party
aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just
After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the
proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable (Sec. 4).
Ascertainment of just compensation
The order of expropriation merely declares that the plaintiff has the lawful to expropriate the
property but contains no ascertainment of the compensation to be paid to the owner of the property.
So upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3)
commissioners to ascertain the just compensation for the property. Objections to the appointment
may be made within 10 days from service of the order of appointment (Sec. 5). The commissioners are
entitled to fees and their fees shall be taxed as part of the costs of the proceedings, and all costs shall
be paid by the plaintiff except those costs of rival claimants litigating their claims (Sec. 12).
Where the principal issue is the determination of just compensation, a hearing before the
commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just
compensation. Although the findings of the commissioners may be disregarded and the trial court
may substitute its own estimate of the value, the latter may do so only for valid reasons, that is where
the commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, where they have
disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed is either grossly
inadequate or excessive.
Appointment of Commissioners; Commissioners report; Court action upon commissioners report
(1) Appointment. Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more
than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the
court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall
designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and
specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the court.
Copies of the order shall be served on the parties. Objections to the appointment of any of the
commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten (10) days from service, and shall be resolved
within thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall have received copies of the objections (Sec. 5).
(2) Proceedings. Before entering upon the performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take
and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as commissioners, which oath
shall be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either
party before the commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and
the commissioners shall, unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties to
attend, view and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may
measure the same, after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The
commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from
such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from the public
use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying
on of the business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the
consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be
deprived of the actual value of his property so taken (Sec. 6).
Report. The court may order the commissioners to report when any particular portion of the
real estate shall have been passed upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partial report,
and direct the commissioners to proceed with their work as to subsequent portions of the property
sought to be expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such property. The commissioners
shall make a full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings, and such proceedings shall
not be effectual until the court shall have accepted their report and rendered judgment in accordance
with their recommendations. Except as otherwise expressly ordered by the court, such report shall be
filed within sixty (60) days from the date the commissioners were notified of their appointment,
which time may be extended in the discretion of the court. Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of
the court shall serve copies thereof on all interested parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10)
days within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire (Sec. 7).
Action upon the report. Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the
preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have
filed their objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after
hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may
recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts; or it may set aside the report and
appoint new commissioners; or it may accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make
such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the
exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so
taken (Sec. 8).
Rights of plaintiff upon judgment and payment
(1) After payment of the just compensation as determined in the judgment, the plaintiff shall have
the right to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate the same for the public use or
purpose defined in the judgment or to retain possession already previously made in accordance with
Sec. 2, Rule 67.
(2) Title to the property expropriated passes from the owner to the expropriator upon full payment
of just compensation (Federated Realty Corp. vs. CA, 477 SCRA 707).
Effect of recording of judgment
The judgment entered in expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an adequate
description, the particular property or interest therein expropriated, and the nature of the public use
or purpose for which it is expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a certified copy of such
judgment shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated, and
its effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so described for such public use or
purpose (Sec. 13).
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68)
A real estate mortgage is an accessory contract executed by a debtor in favor of a creditor as
security for the principal obligation. This principal obligation is a simple loan or mutuum described in
Art. 1953, Civil Code. To be a real estate mortgage, the contract must be constituted on either
immovables (real property) or inalienable real rights. If constituted on movables, the contract is a
chattel mortgage (Art. 2124, CC).
(2) A mortgage contract may have a provision in which the mortgage is a security for past, present
and future indebtedness. This clause known as a dragnet clause or blanket mortgage clause has its origins
in American jurisprudence. The Supreme Court ruled that mortgages given to secure future
advancements are valid and legal contracts (Prudential Bank vs. Alviar, 464 SCRA 353).
Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale
(1) If after the trial, the court finds that the matters set forth in the complaint are true, it shall render
a judgment containing the following matters:
An ascertainment of the amount due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage debt or obligation,
including interest and other charges as approved by the court, as well as costs;
A judgment of the sum found due;
(c) An order that the amount found due be paid to the court or to the judgment obligee within the
period of not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from the entry of judgment; and
An admonition that in default of such payment the property shall be sold at public auction to
satisfy the judgment (Sec. 2).
The judgment of the court on the above matters is considered a final adjudication of the case
and hence, is subject to challenge by the aggrieved party by appeal or by other post-judgment
The period granted to the mortgagor for the payment of the amount found due by the court is
not just a procedural requirement but s substantive right given by law to the mortgagee as his first
chance to save his property from final disposition at the foreclosure sale (De Leon vs. Ibaez, 95 Phil.
Sale of mortgaged property; effect
(1) The confirmation of the sale shall divest the rights in the property of all parties to the action and
shall vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be allowed by law
(Sec. 3). The title vests in the purchaser upon a valid confirmation of the sale and retroacts to the date
of sale (Grimalt vs. Vasquez, 36 Phil. 396).
The import of Sec. 3 includes one vital effect: The equity of redemption of the mortgagor or
redemptioner is cut-off and there will be no further redemption, unless allowed by law (as in the case
of banks as mortgagees). The equity of redemption starts from the ninety-day period set in the
judgment of the court up to the time before the sale is confirmed by an order of the court. once
confirmed, no equity of redemption may further be exercised.
The order of confirmation is appealable and if not appealed within the period for appeal
becomes final. Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the expiration of the period of
redemption when allowed by law, the purchaser at the auction sale or last redemptioner, if any, shall
be entitled to the possession of the property and he may secure a writ of possession, upon, motion,
from the court which ordered the foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding the same
adversely to the judgment obligor (Sec. 3).
(1) The proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be
paid to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or residue after
paying off the mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the order of
their priority. If there be any further balance after paying them or if there be no junior encumbrancers,
the same shall be paid to the mortgagor or any person entitled thereto (Sec. 4).
(1) If there be a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon
motion, shall render judgment against the defendant for any such balance. Execution may issue
immediately if the balance is all due the plaintiff shall be entitled to execution at such time as the
remaining balance shall become due and such due date shall be stated in the judgment (Sec. 6). Note
that the deficiency judgment is in itself a judgment hence, also appealable.
No independent action need be filed to recover the deficiency from the mortgagor. The
deficiency judgment shall be rendered upon motion of the mortgagee. The motion must be made only
after the sale and after it is known that a deficiency exists. Before that, any court order to recover the
deficiency is void (Govt. of PI vs. Torralba, 61 Phil. 689). It has been held that the mortgagor who is not
the debtor and who merely executed the mortgage to secure the principal debtors obligation, is not
liable for the deficiency unless he assumed liability for the same in the contract (Philippine Trust Co. vs.
Echaus Tan Siua, 52 Phil. 852). Since a deficiency judgment cannot be obtained against the mortgagore
who is not the debtor in the principal obligation, mortgagee may have to file a separate suit against
Instances when court cannot render deficiency judgment
(1) Where the debtor-mortgagor is a non-resident and who at the time of the filing of the action for
foreclosure and during the pendency of the proceedings was outside the Philippines, it is believed
that a deficiency judgment under Sec. 6 would not be procedurally feasible. A deficiency judgment is
by nature in personam and jurisdiction over the person is mandatory. Having been outside the
country, jurisdiction over his person could not have been acquired.
Judicial foreclosure versus extrajudicial foreclosure
Extra-judicial Foreclosure (Act 3135)
Judicial foreclosure (Rule 68)
No complaint is filed;
Complaint is filed with the courts;
There is a right of redemption. Mortgagor has a
right of redemption for 1 year from registration
of the sale;
No right of redemption except when mortgagee
is a banking institution; equity of redemption
only (90 to 120 days, and any time before
confirmation of foreclosure sale);
Mortgagee has to file a separate action to
recover any deficiency;
Mortagagee can move for deficiency judgment
Buyer at public auction becomes absolute
owner only after finality of an action for
consolidation of ownership;
Buyer at public auction becomes absolute owner
only after confirmation of the sale;
Mortgagee is given a special power of attorney
in the mortgage contract to foreclose the
mortgaged property in case of default.
Mortgagee need not be given a special power of
Equity of redemption versus right of redemption
The right of defendant mortgagor to
extinguish the mortgage and retain
ownership of the property by paying the
debt within 90 to 120 days after the entry of
judgment or even after the foreclosure sale
but prior to confirmation.
A right granted to a debtor mortgagor, his
successor in interest or any judicial creditor
or judgment creditor or any person having a
lien on the property subsequent to the
mortgage or deed of trust under which the
property is sold to repurchase the property
within one year even after the confirmation
of the sale and even after the registration of
the certificate of foreclosure sale.
May be exercised even after the foreclosure
There is no right of redemption in a judicial
sale provided it is made before the sale is
confirmed by order of the court.
foreclosure of mortgage under Rule 68. This
right of redemption exists only in
extrajudicial foreclosures where there is
always a right of redemption within one
year from the date of sale (Sec. 3, Act 3135),
but interpreted by the Court to mean one
year from the registration of the sale.
May also exist in favor or other
encumbrances. If subsequent lien holders are
General rule: In judicial foreclosures there is
only an equity of redemption which can be
not impleaded as parties in the foreclosure
suit, the judgment in favor of the foreclosing
mortgagee does not bind the other lien
holders. In this case, their equity of
redemption remains unforeclosed. A
separate foreclosure proceeding has to be
brought against them to require them to
redeem from the first mortgagee or from the
party acquiring the title to the mortgaged
exercised prior to the confirmation of the
foreclosure sale. This means that after the
foreclosure sale but before its confirmation,
the mortgagor may exercise his right of pay
the proceeds of the sale and prevent the
If not by banks, the mortgagors merely have
an equity of redemption, which is simply
their right, as mortgagor, to extinguish the
mortgage and retain ownership of the
property by paying the secured debt prior to
the confirmation of the foreclosure sale.
Exception: there is a right of redemption if
the foreclosure is in favor of banks as
mortgagees, whether the foreclosure be
judicial or extrajudicial. This right of
redemption is explicitly provided in Sec. 47
of the General Banking Law of 2000. While
the law mentions the redemption period to
be one year counted from the date of
registration of the certificate in the Registry
Partition (Rule 69)
(1) Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to
whom it may belong (Cruz vs. CA, 456 SCRA 165). It presupposes the existence of a co-ownership
over a property between two or more persons. The rule allowing partition originates from a wellknown principle embodied in the Civil Code, that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain the coownership. Because of this rule, he may demand at any time the partition of the property owned in
common (Art. 494).
Instances when a co-owner may not demand partition at any time:
(a) There is an agreement among the co-owners to keep the property undivided for a certain period
of time but not exceeding ten years (Arft. 494);
When partition is prohibited by the donor or testator for a period not exceeding 20 years (Art.
494);
When partition is prohibited by law (Art. 494);
When the property is not subject to a physical division and to do so would render it
unserviceable for the use for which it is intended (Art. 495);
(e) When the condition imposed upon voluntary heirs before they can demand partition has not yet
been fulfilled (Art. 1084).
Who may file complaint; Who should be made defendants
(1) The action shall be brought by the person who has a right to compel the partition of real estate
(Sec. 1) or of an estate composed of personal property, or both real and personal property (Sec. 13).
The plaintiff is a person who is supposed to be a co-owner of the property or estate sought to be
partitioned. The defendants are all the co-owners. All the co-owners must be joined. Accordingly, an
action will not lie without the joinder of all co-owners and other persons having interest in the
property (Reyes vs. Cordero, 46 Phil. 658). All the co-owners, therefore, are indispensable parties.
Matters to allege in the complaint for partition
The plaintiff shall state in his complaint, the nature and extent of his title, an adequate
description of the real estate of which partition is demanded, and shall join as defendants all other
persons interested in the property (Sec. 1). He must also include a demand for the accounting of the
rents, profits and other income from the property which he may be entitled to (Sec. 8). These cannot
be demanded in another action because they are parts of the cause of action for partition. They will be
barred if not set up in the same action pursuant to the rule against splitting a single cause of action.
A reading of the Rules will reveal that there are actually three (3) stages in the action, each of
which could be the subject of appeal: (a) the order of partition where the property of the partition is
determined; (b) the judgment as to the accounting of the fruits and income of the property; and (c) the
judgment of partition (Riano, Civil Procedure (A Restatement for the Bar), 2007).
Order of partition and partition by agreement
(1) During the trial, the court shall determine whether or not the plaintiff is truly a co-owner of the
property, that there is indeed a co-ownership among the parties, and that a partition is not legally
proscribed thus may be allowed. If the court so finds that the facts are such that a partition would be
in order, and that the plaintiff has a right to demand partition, the court will issue an order of
(2) The court shall order the partition of the property among all the parties in interest, if after trial it
finds that the plaintiff has the right to partition (Sec. 2). It was held that this order of partition
including an order directing an accounting is final and not interlocutory and hence, appealable; thus,
revoking previous contrary rulings on the matter. A final order decreeing partition and accounting
may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.
Partition by agreement. The order of partition is one that directs the parties or co-owners to
partition the property and the parties may make the partition among themselves by proper
instruments of conveyance, if they agree among themselves. If they do agree, the court shall then
confirm the partition so agreed upon by all of the parties, and such partition, together with the order
of the court confirming the same, shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the
property is situated (Sec. 2). There always exists the possibility that the co-owners are unable to agree
on the partition. If they cannot partition the property among themselves, the next stage in the action
will follow, the appointment of commissioners.
Partition by commissioners; Appointment of commissioners, Commissioners report; Court action
upon commissioners report
Sec. 3. Commissioners to make partition when parties fail to agree. If the parties are unable to agree
upon the partition, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested
persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to set off to the plaintiff and to
each party in interest such part and proportion of the property as the court shall direct.
Sec. 4. Oath and duties of commissioners. Before making such partition, the commissioners shall take
shall be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case. In making the partition, the
commissioners shall view and examine the real estate, after due notice to the parties to attend at such
view and examination, and shall hear the parties as to their preference in the portion of the property
to be set apart to them and the comparative value thereof, and shall set apart the same to the parties
in lots or parcels as will be most advantageous and equitable, having due regard to the
improvements, situation and quality of the different parts thereof.
Sec. 5. Assignment or sale of real estate by commissioners. When it is made to appear to the
commissioners that the real estate, or a portion thereof, cannot be divided without prejudice to the
interests of the parties, the court may order it assigned to one of the parties willing to take the same,
provided he pays to the other parties such amounts as the commissioners deem equitable, unless one
of the interested parties asks that the property be sold instead of being so assigned, in which case the
court shall order the commissioners to sell the real estate at public sale under such conditions and
within such time as the court may determine.
Sec. 6. Report of commissioners; proceedings not binding until confirmed. The commissioners shall make
a full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings as to the partition, or the assignment of
real estate to one of the parties, or the sale of the same. Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of
court shall serve copies thereof on all the interested parties with notice that they are allowed ten (10)
days within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire. No proceeding had
before or conducted by the commissioners shall pass the title to the property or bind the parties until
the court shall have accepted the report of the commissioners and rendered judgment thereon.
Sec. 7. Action of the court upon commissioners report. Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10)
days referred to in the preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but after the
interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith,
the court may, upon hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith; or, for
cause shown, recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts; or set aside the
report and appoint new commissioners; or accept the report in part and reject it in part; and may
make such order and render such judgment as shall effectuate a fair and just partition of the real
estate, or of its value, if assigned or sold as above provided, between the several owners thereof.
Judgment and its effects
The judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description, the
particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party, the effect of the judgment shall be to vest
in each party to the action in severalty the portion of the real estate assigned to him.
(2) If the whole property is assigned to one of the parties upon his paying to the others the sum or
sums ordered by the court, the judgment shall state the fact of such payment and of the assignment of
the real estate to the party making the payment, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest in the
party making the payment the whole of the real estate free from any interest on the part of the other
parties to the action.
(3) If the property is sold and the sale confirmed by the court, the judgment shall state the name of
the purchaser or purchasers and a definite description of the parcels of real estate sold to each
purchaser, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest the real estate in the purchaser or purchasers
making the payment or payments, free from the claims of any of the parties to the action.
A certified copy of the judgment shall in either case be recorded in the registry of deeds of the
place in which the real estate is situated, and the expenses of such recording shall be taxed as part of
the costs of the action (Sec. 11).
(1) The provisions of this Rule shall apply to partitions of estates composed of personal property, or
of both real and personal property, in so far as the same may be applicable (Sec. 13).
(1) Prescription of action does not run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owner or coheirs as long as there is a recognition of the co-ownership expressly or impliedly (Art. 494).
The action for partition cannot be barred by prescription as long as the co-ownership exists
(Aguirre vs. CA, 421 SCRA 310).
(3) But while the action to demand partition of a co-owned property does not prescribe, a co-owner
may acquire ownership thereof by prescription where there exists a clear repudiation of the coownership and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership.
(1) The actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer belong to the class of actions known by the
generic name accion interdictal (ejectment) where the issue is the right of physical or material
possession of the subject real property independent of any claim of ownership by the parties involved
(Mendoza vs. CA, 452 SCRA 117 [2005]).
Accion Interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action:
Forcible entry (detentacion), where one is deprived of physical possession of real property by
means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats or stealth;
Unlawful Detainer (desahuico), where one illegally withholds possession after the expiration or
termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.
The possession of the defendant is unlawful
from the beginning; issue is which party has
prior de facto possession;
The possession of the defendant is lawful
from the beginning becomes illegal by
reason of the expiration or termination of his
right to the possession of the property;
The law does not require previous demand
for the defendant to vacate;
Plaintiff must first make such demand which
is jurisdictional in nature;
The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior
physical possession of the premises until he
was deprived by the defendant; and
The plaintiff need not have been in prior
physical possession;
The one year period is generally counted
from the date of actual entry on the property.
The one-year period is counted from the
date of last demand.
Distinguished from accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria
A plenary ordinary civil action for the recovery of
the better right of possession (juridical possession),
must be filed after the expiration of one year from
An action for the recovery of the
exercise of ownership, particularly
recovery of possession as an attribute
the accrual of the cause of action or from the
unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. In
other words, if at the time of the filing of the
complaint more than one year had elapsed since
defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or
defendants possession had become illegal, the
action will be not one of forcible entry or unlawful
detainer but an accion publiciana (Valdez vs, CA, GR
132424, May 2, 2006).
or incident of ownership;
The basis of the recovery of possession is the
plaintiffs real right of possession or jus possessionis,
which is the right to the possession of the real
property independent of ownership.
The basis for the recovery of
possession is ownership itself.
How to determine jurisdiction in accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria
The actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer are within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the MTC, MeTC and MCTC (Sec. 33[2], BP 129; RA 7691) and shall be governed by the
rules on summary procedure irrespective of the amount of damages or rental sought to be recovered
(Sec. 3, Rule 70).
(2) In actions for forcible entry, two allegations are mandatory for the MTC to acquire jurisdiction:
(a) plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property; and (b) he must also allege that
he was deprived of his possession by force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth. If the alleged
dispossession did not occur by any of these means, the proper recourse is to file not an action for
forcible entry but a plenary action to recover possession (Benguet Corp. Cordillera Caraballo Mission, GR
155343, Sept. 2, 2005).
(3) Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case
of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer (Valdez vs. CA, GR
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. The mere raising of the issue of
tenancy does not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the allegations of the complaint and is not dependent upon the defenses set up by the
defendant (Marino, Jr. vs. Alamis, 450 SCRA 198 [2005]).
Who may institute the action and when; against whom the action may be maintained
(1) Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of
any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or
other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the
expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or
implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person,
may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,
bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully
withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the
restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs (Sec. 1).
(2) Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to
pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving
written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on
the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15)
days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings (Sec. 2).
The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaint, compulsory counterclaim and crossclaim pleaded in the answer, and the answers thereto. All pleadings shall be verified (Sec. 4).
The court may, from an examination of the allegations in the complaint and such evidence as
may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil
action which are apparent therein. If no ground for dismissal is found, it shall forthwith issue
summons (Sec. 5).
When demand is necessary
(1) Unless there exists a stipulation to the contrary, an unlawful detainer case shall be commenced
only after the demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon
the lessee (Sec. 2). The requirement for a demand implies that the mere failure of the occupant to pay
rentals or his failure to comply with the conditions of the lease does not ipso facto render his
possession of the premises unlawful. It is the failure to comply with the demand that vests upon the
lessor a cause of action.
The demand may be in the form of a written notice served upon the person found in the
premises. The demand may also be made by posting a written notice on the premises if no person can
be found thereon (Sec. 2). It has been ruled, however, that the demand upon a tenant may be oral
(Jakihaca vs. Aquino, 181 SCRA 67). Sufficient evidence must be adduced to show that there was indeed
a demand like testimonies from disinterested and unbiased witnesses.
Preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction
The court may grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58, to
prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff. A possessor
deprived of his possession through forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, within five (5) days from
the filing of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. The court
shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof (Sec. 15).
Resolving defense of ownership
The assertion by the defendant of ownership over the disputed property does not serve to
divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction. The defendant cannot deprive the court of jurisdiction by
merely claiming ownership of the property involved (Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia vs. Dimatulac, 401
SCRA 742; Perez vs. Cruz, 404 SCRA 487). If the defendant raises the question of ownership and the
issue of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the question of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession (Sec. 3, RA 7691).
(2) When the defendant raises the issue of ownership, the court may resolve the issue of ownership
When the issue of possession cannot be resolved without resolving the issue of ownership; and
The issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession (Sec. 16).
Such judgment would not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or
building. The resolution of the MeTC on the ownership of the property is merely provisional or
interlocutory. Any question involving the issue of ownership should be raised and resolved in a
separate action brought specifically to settle the question with finality (Roberts vs. Papio, GR 166714,
Feb. 9, 2007).
How to stay the immediate execution of judgment
Defendant must take the following steps to stay the execution of the judgment:
Perfect an appeal;
File a supersedeas bond to pay for the rents, damages and costs accruing down to the time of
the judgment appealed from; and
Deposit periodically with the RTC, during the pendency of the appeal, the adjudged amount of
(c) Deposit periodically with the RTC, during the pendency of the appeal, the adjudged amount of
rent due under the contract or if there be no contract, the reasonable value of the use and occupation
of the premises (Sec. 19).
Where delay in the deposit is due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence;
(b) Where supervening events occur subsequent to the judgment bringing about a material change
in the situation of the parties which makes execution inequitable; and
Where there is no compelling urgency for the execution because it is not justified by the
Summary procedure, prohibited pleadings
(1) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions are summary in nature designed to provide for an
expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved
(Tubiano vs. Riazo, 335 SCRA 531). These action shall both fall under the coverage of the Rules of
Summary Procedure irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rental sought to be recovered
(Sec. 3).
Prohibited pleadings and motions:
Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, or failure to comply with section 12;
Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
Contempt (Rule 71)
Contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to the rules or orders of a judicial body, or an
interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language, in its presence or so near
thereto as to disturb the proceedings or to impair the respect due to such body (17 C.J.S. 4).
Contempt of court is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice
and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the courts orders but also
conduct tending to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or, in
some manner to impede the due administration of justice (Siy vs. NLRC, GR 158971, Ausg. 25, 2005).
The reason for the power to punish for contempt is that respect of the courts guarantees the
stability of their institution. Without such guarantee, said institution would be resting on shaky
foundation (Cornejo vs.Tan, 85 Phil. 772).
It is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of the courts, and
consequently, to the due administration of justice (Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271).
Contempt proceedings has dual function:
Vindication of public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; and
(b) Coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires him to uphold the power of the
Court, and also to secure the rights of the parties to a suit awarded by the Court (Regalado vs. Go, GR
167988, Feb. 6, 2007).
Kinds of contempt; Purpose and nature of each
Civil or Criminal, depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act.
Direct or indirect, according to the manner of commission.
It is the failure to do something ordered to
be done by a court or a judge for the benefit
of the opposing party therein and is
therefore and offense against the party in
whose behalf the violated order was made;
It is a conduct directed against the authority
and dignity of the court or a judge acting
judicially; it is an obstructing the
administration of justice which tends to
bring the court into disrepute or disrespect;
The purpose is to compensate for the benefit
The purpose is to punish, to vindicate the
authority of the court and protect its
outraged dignity;
The rules of procedure governing contempt
Should be conducted in accordance with the
proceedings or criminal prosecutions
ordinarily are inapplicable to civil contempt
principles and rules applicable to criminal
cases, insofar as such procedure is consistent
with the summary nature of contempt
In general is committed in the presence
of or so near the court or judge as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings
It is not committed in the presence of the court,
but done at a distance which tends to belittle,
degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and
Acts constituting direct contempt are:
Acts constituting indirect contempt are:
a) Misbehavior in the presence of or so
near the court as to obstruct or interrupt
the proceedings before it;
(a) Misbehavior an officer of a court in the
performance of his official duties or in his official
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,
including the act of a person who, after being
dispossessed or ejected from any real property
by the judgment or process of any court of
competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
induces another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing acts of
ownership or possession, or in any manner
disturbs the possession given to the person
adjudged to be entitled thereto;
Disrespect toward the court;
c) Offensive personalities towards
d) Refusal to be sworn as a witness or
to answer as a witness;
e) Refusal to subscribe an affidavit or
deposition when lawfully required to do
so (Sec. 1);
f) Acts of a party or a counsel which
constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping (Sec. 1, Rule 7);
g) Unfounded accusations or
allegations or words in a pleading
tending to embarrass the court or to
bring it into disrepute (Re: Letter dated 21
Feb. 2005 of Atty. Noel Sorreda, 464 SCRA
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference
with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt under section 1 of
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a
court, and acting as such without authority;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person
or property in the custody of an officer by virtue
of an order or process of a court held by him (Sec.
Remedy against direct contempt; penalty
The penalty for direct contempt depends upon the court which the act was committed;
(a) If the act constituting direct contempt was committed against an RTC or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, the penalty is a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos or imprisonment not exceeding 10 days,
(b) If the act constituting direct contempt was committed against a lower court, the penalty is a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both (Sec. 1);
(c) If the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet within the power of
the respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of the court concerned until he performs
it (Sec. 8).
A person adjudged in direct contempt may not appeal therefrom. His remedy is a petition for
certiorari or prohibition directed against the court which adjudged him in direct contempt (Sec. 2).
Pending the resolution of the petition for certiorari or prohibition, the execution of the judgment for
direct contempt shall be suspended. The suspension however shall take place only if the person
adjudged in contempt files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment. This bond is
conditioned upon his performance of the judgment should the petition be decided against him.
Remedy against indirect contempt; penalty
(1) The punishment for indirect contempt depends upon the level of the court against which the act
(a) Where the act was committed against an RTC or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be
punished by a fine not exceeding 30,000 pesos or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both;
(b) Where the act was committed against a lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding
5,000 pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one month, or both. Aside from the applicable penalties,
if the contempt consists in the violation of a writ of injunction, TRO or status quo order, he may also be
ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by such violation of the property involved
or such amount as may be alleged and proved (Sec. 7);
(c) Where the act was committed against a person or entity exercising quasi-judicial functions, the
penalty imposed shall depend upon the provisions of the law which authorizes a penalty for
contempt against such persons or entities.
The person adjudged in indirect contempt may appeal from the judgment or final order of the
court in the same manner as in criminal cases. The appeal will not however have the effect of
suspending the judgment if the person adjudged in contempt does not file a bond in an amount fixed
by the court from which the appeal is taken. This bond is conditioned upon his performance of the
judgment or final order if the appeal is decided against (Sec. 11).
How contempt proceedings are commenced
(1) Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the
contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon
full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court
concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the
court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and
decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge
and the principal action for joint hearing and decision (Sec. 4).
Acts deemed punishable as indirect contempt
After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to
comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or
Misbehavior an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including
the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment
or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into
or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any
manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an
order or process of a court held by him (Sec. 3).
(2) Failure by counsel to inform the court of the death of his client constitutes indirect contempt
within the purview of Sec. 3, Rule 71, since it constitutes an improper conduct tending to impede the
When imprisonment shall be imposed
(1) When the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet in the power of
it (Sec. 8). Indefinite incarceration may be resorted to where the attendant circumstances are such that
the non-compliance with the court order is an utter disregard of the authority of the court which has
then no other recourse but to use its coercive power. When a person or party is legally and validly
required by a court to appear before it for a certain purpose, and when that requirement is disobeyed,
the only remedy left for the court is to use force to bring the person or party before it.
The punishment is imposed for the benefit of a complainant or a party to a suit who has been
injured aside from the need to compel performance of the orders or decrees of the court, which the
contemnor refuses to obey although able to do so. In effect, it is within the power of the person
adjudged guilty of contempt to set himself free.
Contempt against quasi-judicial bodies
The rules on contempt apply to contempt committed against persons or entities exercising
quasi-judicial functions or in case there are rules for contempt adopted for such bodies or entities
pursuant to law, Rule 71 shall apply suppletorily (Sec. 12).
Quasi-judicial bodies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt can only do so
by initiating them in the proper RTC. It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to decide the
indirect contempt cases. The RTC of the place where contempt has been committed shall have
jurisdiction over the charges for indirect contempt that may be filed (Sec. 12).
About these ads (https://wordpress.com/about-these-ads/)
Posted in Bar Exms 2011, Civil Procedure, Remedial Law, Reviewers
sir, your discussion on the subject matter is very useful.
By: victor emerito s. agcaoili on August 8, 2011
Thank you.. God speed.
By: JJMO on January 9, 2013
Documents Similar To 2011 Remedial Law Reviewer (Special Civil Actions) | The Greenhorn Philosopher
Baranda and Hitalia
Edited 3 CIVPRO
15Quisumbing v Rosales - Commission on Human Rights
107. Technology vs. CA.docx
Notes in Civil Procedure
Thei Gardose
SHELL-Velasco Envi Cases
Civil Procedure Cases Intervention Rule 19
socorro ramirez vs. court of appeals.pdf
ca vs. lopez
DIGESTS-Rule-39.docx
al. CIR v Toledo
Aaalabor Assigned Cases Aaaa
Evidence Best - Rule 120
Revocation Spa
Part II- Succession
San Beda 2011 Remedial Law (Evidence).pdf
Unlawful Answer
April 26 Digests
Labor Meeting Now
TEMA 1. Giesela Ruhl, methods and approaches in choice of law, an economic perspective.doc
01 City of Lapu-Lapu v. PEZA
Notice of Appeal and Petition for Discretionary Review, Kirby v North Carolina Dep't of Transportation, No. ___ (Mar. 24, 2015)