Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
5 Araneta vs Gatmaitan
1. Several fishermen used trawls as a fishing method to
fish in San Miguel Bay between Camarines Norte and
Sur
2. Municipal Mayor prayed to the President to protect
them and the fish resources by banning the operation
of trawls there
3. The president issued EO 22 by prohibiting the trawls
use therein
4. Trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction and/or
declaratory relief with PI with the CFI
a. Sec. of Agriculture and NatRes answered and
said that the only 11 out of the 18 plaintiffs were
licensed to operate fishing boats
b. That the EO was issued in accordance with law
c. That the constitutionality of an EO cannot be
made in a declaratory relied
5. Lower Court held that the Eos prohibiting such are
invalid
WON declaratory relief was proper. YES
1. In a previous case, the court had already ruled on the
issue of the constitutionality of an EO through a petition
for declaratory relief
2. The injunction and PI prayers are correct (there was a
violation of the right of plaintiffs)
3. Also, DENR Secretary and other government officials need
not file a bond because the government is always
presumed to be solvent
4. The Eos are valid. The DENR was given the power by the
Legislature to place restriction on the use of fishing nets
or devices to protect fish fry or fish eggs. And to declare it
unlawful to kill, disturb or drive away fish fry or eggs.
a. It was held that the Eos were made because of the
destruction of shrimps laying their eggs
6 Jumamil vs Caf
1. Jumamil filed with the RTC a pet. For declaratory relief
with prayer for PI and TRO against Mayor Caf and the
Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members questioning the
constitutionality of Municipal Res. No. 7, 1989
a. Such provided for money for construction of
stalls in a public market which was previously
burned down (P1.5M)
2. Mayor Caf already entered into a contract with his
friends and relatives who deposited P40k each. And
then, he leased them solely to them.
3. RTC held that the declaratory relief was improper
because the contract was between the mayor and his
friends. Jumamil has no interest in the contract.
a. CA affirmed
WON declaratory relief was proper. NO, he has no legal
standing.
1. Constitutionality requisites before a court may rule upon
such: justiciable controversy; ripe for adjudication; legal
standing; earliest opportunity
2. Legal standing- person has substantial and persona
interest or that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of
such governmental act. Material interest;
a. Jumamil has no legal standing- this petition was
brought as a taxpayer. A taxpayer need not be a
party to the contract to challenge its validity as
long as he proves sufficient interest in preventing
the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation.
b. He however, failed to assert his interest in the
prevention of illegal expenditure. The fact that he
said he wanted to lease such stall was a mere
afterthought.
c. Court may relax this rule when the issue is of
transcendental
significance
and
paramount
importance to the people.
3. HOWEVER, Jumamil failed to prove that there was
discrimination in selection of the lessees. It must be
clearly established.
7 Santos vs Aquino
1. Santos was a manager of a theater, Cine Concepcion
a. Municipal ordinance no. 61 was adopted and
imposed a license tax to the theater and to ticket
sales
b. It was amended later on and imposed graduated
rates of P200 to P9000 per annum. The department
lowered the amounts, but nonetheless, said tax was
approved.
2. Santos questioned said tax as it amounts to confiscation,
it was oppressive and that it is beyond the power of the
municipality and DOF to impose.
a. He filed petition for declaratory relief
8 MMDA vs Viron
1. PGMA enacted an EO which allows the MMDA to
decongest the traffic in Metro Manila by eliminating
bus terminals along EDSA (as found in the EOs
whereas clauses)
a. Viron and Mencorp, two separate bus companies
filed a petition for declaratory relief and asked
for a construction of the extent of MMDAs
power as provided for in the special law creating
it.
2. TC: unconstitutional; upon MR: reversed
3. MMDA claims that the requisites for a proper petition
for declaratory relief are not present
9 Republic vs Obrecido
1. Obrecido married Lady Villanueva in the Philippines.
Both are Filipino citizens
2. Lady went to the US and was naturalized as an
American citizen
a. She also filed a petition for divorce which was
granted
b. So she married another man, Stephenson
3. Cipriano filed with the court a petition for authority to
remarry
WON
1. The Supreme Court treated such as a petition for
declaratory relief.
2. Declaratory relief elements:
a. There must be a justiciable controversy
b. The parties must have an adverse interest
c. The person seeking declaratory relief must have
legal interest in the controversy
d. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination
3. Any person interested in a will, contract or other written
instrument or rights are affected by statute, EO,
regulation, ordinance or government regulation
a. May ask for construction or validity and a
declaration of his rights and duties
b. It must be filed before breach
4. Also, Obrecido is likewise allowed to remarry.
10 Quisumbing vs Garcia
1. COA conducted an audit of the Province of Cebu and
found that contracts worth P102M
were not made
with
the
authorization
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan as required by R.A. 7160
a. Gov. Garcia filed an MR
2. Pending resolution of the MR, Garcia filed a petition for
declaratory relief alleging the contracts were duly
executed because it complied with the bidding
procedures and was pursuant to the general/
supplemental ordinances of the SP
3. TC: Garcia need not secure an SP authorization
a. Since there was already breach, it would be
treated as an ordinary action
WON pet. For declaratory relief is proper. NO.
1. Petitions for declaratory relief must be filed before breach
or violation of the deed/ written instrument/ statute or
ordinance
a. The purpose of such is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the
parties for their guidance in its enforcement or
compliance and not to settle issues arising from an
alleged breach
13 Lim vs Republic
1. Lim filed a petition to be permitted to take an oath and
to be repatriated to the Philippines.
a. She alleged she used to be Filipino but lost such
when she married a Chinese citizen
b. That she has all the qualifications to be declared
Filipino
2. LC: granted
WON petition filed by Lim was proper. NO
1. Her petition was made to establish her citizenship prior to
her marriage
a. SC treated it as one for declaratory relief
2. SC said that declaratory relief is inapplicable to political
status of a natural person
a. Citizenship can only be ruled upon by the Courts in
an action where citizenship is a material issue
3. Declaratory relief cannot be used to determine issues
which are moot/ abstract or theoretical or when claims are
uncertain
a. It must be based on a will etc.
15 Singson vs Republic
1. Singson filed for naturalization
a. LC granted. No one opposed
2. 2 years later, SolGen filed a petition to set the decision
aside
a. That Singson was registered with the Bureau of
Immigration as Chinese
b. LC: declared as void its previous decision
WON decision was void.
FACTS:
1. Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Albay dismissing
petitioners declaratory relief
2. Petitioner alleges that he is a Filipino citizen by birth
and parentage but because of erroneous belief and
fear of criminal prosecution, he registered himself as
Chinese alien. He never intended to give up his Filipino
citizenship, and that he continued to hold himself out
as a Filipino citizen
3. OSG opposed filed an opposition; no cause of action
and no actual controversy because petitioner is merely
in doubt as to his right. His desire to establish
citizenship should be done in a separate proceeding
4. Court sustained the opposition and dismissed the
petition. Any declaration the court might render will
not terminate the controversy.
23 Adlawan v. IAC
FACTS:
1. Petition to declare null and void the decision of CFI for
declaratory relief with injunction and resolution of IAC
dismissing the appeal
2. Prior the advent of martial law, there were two
cockpits operating under license owned and operated
by the respondents
3. With the promulgation of PD 449, which provided for
one cockpit for every municipality, the present
controversy arose
4. The question arose as to which cockpit shall remain to
operate, Final determination was held in abeyance with
the municipal council, instead it was referred to the
Constabulary which had jurisdiction
5. Provincial command upholding the Coliseum of the
private respondents as the municipal cockpit
6. The operator of the barrio cockpit appealed the
decision to the Zone Commander who referred the
matter back to the municipal council
7. Municipal council submitted a report recommending
the retention of the barrio cockpit
8. Under RA 1224, municipal board has the power to
determine the distance limit of cockpits from certain
public structures
9. The committee concluded that the Coliseum failed to
meet the required distance limit, hence, Municipal
cockpit should be maintained as the cockpit
10.Respondents argue that such law regarding distance
only took effect after they were awarded license, and
according to the law, such distance requirement
should have no retroactive effect
11.Resolution 40 was passed to make and issue a
certification that the municipal cockpit is the Bagong
Bulangan Cockpit
12.Private respondents Enad and Larumbe filed an action
for declaratory relief with injunction
13.CFI- in favor of the respondents
14.Diores appealed with the IAC, Diores sold the
municipal cockpit to Adlawan pending the appeal
form of the action availed of, the court can grant such
affirmative relief as may be warranted by the evidence
(VISPAC)
v.
FACTS:
1. Contract and purchase of sale was entered between
petitioner and respondent, to be paid in 10 equal
yearly installments by VISPAC
2. Prior to the due date of the 1st installment, REPACOM
sent VISPAC a written reminder
3. VISPACs response was to file in CFI 2 special civil
actions for declaratory relief, alleging ambiguity for
there is a failure to state the precise time when to pay
4. VISPAC, despite demands, failed to pay on the alleged
due date
5. REPACOM instituted civil case for collection of money
6. VISPAC moved to dismiss collection suit due to the
pending declaratory relief actions, arguing that unless
the latter were resolved, there is no cause of action
7. MD was denied
8. CFI order VISPAC to pay REPACOM
9. VISPAC appealed to the CA, but bought declaratory
reliefs had been dismissed by CFI (SC affirmed the
dismissal of the relief suits)
10.CA affirmed CFI
ISSUE: Whether or not it was error on the Appellate Court's
part to have affirmed the Trial Court's decision for the
collection of the first installment of the price due from it
under its contract with REPACOM, because that money claim
should have been set up as a compulsory counterclaim in the
declaratory relief action
RATIO:
there is nothing in the nature of a special civil action
for declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a
counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or
contract subject of the complaint. A special civil action
is after an not essentially different from all ordinary
civil action, which is generally governed by Rules 1 to
56 of the Rules of Court, except that the former deals
with a special subject matter which makes necessary
some special regulation. But the Identity between their
27
IN THE
MATTER OF THE
PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY
OF ORDINANCE NO. 386 OF THE CITY OF BAGUIO,
BAGUIO CITIZENS ACTION INC., and JUNIOR CHAMBER
OF BAGUIO CITY, INC
FACTS:
1. Petition for declaratory relief was filed with the CFI,
declaring the Ordinance (All squatters of Public Land
other than those for public use in the city are
considered as bonafide occupants of their respective
lots) as invalid and void ab intio
2. The respondent filed MD, it was denied
3. Petition was dismissed
a. Another CFI has declared the ordinance as valid
b. Those who come within the protection of the
ordinance have not been made parties to the
suit (non-joinder of parties)
c. Declaration is not necessary and proper at the
time under all circumstances
ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance is valid. NO.
RATIO:
There is nothing in Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court which says that the non-joinder of persons who
have or claim any interest which would be affected by
the declaration is a jurisdictional defect
It must be noted that the reason for the law requiring
the joinder of all necessary parties is that failure to do
so would deprive the declaration of the final and
pacifying function the action for declaratory relief is
calculated to subserve, as they would not be bound by
the declaration and may raise the Identical issue
In the case at bar, although it is true that any
declaration by the court would affect the squatters, the
latter are not necessary parties because the question
involved is the power of the Municipal Council to enact
the Ordinances in question. Whether or not they are
impleaded, any determination of the controversy
would be binding upon the squatters
A declaration on the nullity of the ordinance, would
give the squatters no right which they are entitled to
RATIO:
We rule that the PEZA erred in availing itself of a
petition for declaratory relief against the City. The City
had already issued demand letters and real property
tax assessment against the PEZA
The Special Economic Zone Act of 1995, the subject
matter of PEZAs petition for declaratory relief, had
already been breached
The trial court, therefore, had no jurisdiction over the
petition for declaratory relief. Any decision rendered by
a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action is void
Once an assessment has already been issued by the
assessor, the proper remedy of a taxpayer depends on
whether the assessment was erroneous or illegal.
In case of an erroneous assessment, the taxpayer
must exhaust the administrative remedies provided