DECLARATORY RELIEF

It is an action filed before the court to interpret or determine the validity of any of the subject
matter stated above and to declare their rights or duties under the subject matter in question.

The subject matter if a declaratory relief must be

1. Deed
2. Will,
3. Contract
4. Other written instrument
5. Statute
6. Executive order or regulation
7. Ordinance
8. Any other governmental regulation.

REQUISITES

1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental
regulation;

2. The terms of the subject matter in question and/or its validity are doubtful and require
judicial interpretation and/or determination;

3. There must have been no breach or violation of the subject matter in question;

4. There must be a justiciable controversy;

5. The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;

6. The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy;

7. The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination; and,

8. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or
proceeding.

RECENT JURISPRUDENCE ON DECLARATORY RELIEF

The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy for the action to
prosper. This interest must be material not merely incidental. It must be an interest that which will
be affected by the challenged decree, law or regulation. It must be a present substantial
interest, as opposed to a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest.

Moreover, in case the petition for declaratory relief specifically involves a question of
constitutionality, the courts will not assume jurisdiction over the case unless the person
challenging the validity of the act possesses the requisite legal standing to pose the challenge.
Locus standi is a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act. The question is whether
the challenging party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy so as to
assure the existence of concrete adverseness that would sharpen the presentation of issues and
illuminate the court in ruling on the constitutional question posed. [Secretary of Finance, et. al.
vs. Representative Carmelo F. Lazatin, et. al., G.R. No. 210588, November 29, 2016]

Issuance of an EO is not judicial, quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and
prohibition is an incorrect remedy; instead a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper recourse to assail the validity
of an Executive Order [Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila]

NOTE:

 A court may refuse to take judicial declaration when a decision would not terminate the
controversy which gave rise to the action
 The parties must show or demonstrate that they sustained or are in immediate danger to
sustain direct injury. Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas
for declaratory relief, over which the Court has no original jurisdiction.
 The controversy must be ripe for adjudication. It is ripe for adjudication the act being
challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. Failure to
prove will result to a dismissal of the case
 A petition for declaratory relief must be filed before a breach occurs. In SEBASTIAN
SARMIENTO, ET AL vs. HON. ELEUTERIO CAPAPAS, the court opined that the institution of
an action for declaratory relief after a breach of contract or statute, is objectionable on
various grounds, among which is that it violates the rule on multiplicity of suits.
 Consequently, where the facts and circumstances in a dispute are such that damages
or rights have already accrued an action for declaratory relief is inappropriate. The
object of the declaratory judgment is to permit determination of a controversy before
obligations are repudiated or rights are violated.

US CASES

 There are classic examples of business situations in which a declaratory judgment action
is appropriate. For example, a declaratory judgment action may be brought by an
employee against his or her former employer concerning the enforceability of a
covenant not to compete.
 The employee’s new employer, who competes with the former employer, may also join in
the action.
 The employee may seek declaratory relief that the covenant is unenforceable before
commencing work with a competitor and potentially violating the covenant. The new
employer may seek declaratory relief that its employment of the employee will not
constitute tortuous interference with the former employer’s contractual relations with its
former employee. In this situation, declaratory relief is an appropriate remedy. See, e.g.,
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga. App. 727, 729, 490 S.E.2d 136,
138-9 (1997).

 Similarly, an insurer may seek declaratory relief that it owes no duty to defend its insured
under an insurance policy after a claim is submitted for coverage but before a formal
 declination of coverage is issued. See, e.g., Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Fountain, 262 Ga. 16,
17, 413 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1992).
 A company concerned about infringing another company’s patent may file a
declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of non-infringement. See, e.g., North
Amer. Oil Co. v. Star Brite Distributing, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 1351, 1355 (N.D. Ga. 2001).