Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(a) Special civil actions initiated by filing of (b) Special civil actions initiated by filing of
a Petition: a Complaint:
1. Declaratory relief other than similar remedies; 1. Interpleader;
2. Review of adjudication of the COMELEC and COA; 2. Expropriation;
3. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; 3. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
4. Quo warranto; and 4. Partition; and
5. Contempt 5. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
When to file
(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).
Reformation of an instrument
(1) 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).
(3) 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).
(4) Reformation of the instrument cannot be brought to reform any of the following:
(a) Simple donation inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
(b) Wills; or
(c) When the agreement is void (Art. 1666, CC).
Consolidation of ownership
(1) 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 co-owner 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.
(2) 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).
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).
(3) 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).
(4) 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.
(2) The “not less than 5 days” provision for filing a pleading applies only to:
(a) filing an answer after a denial of a MtD;
(b) 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.
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
Rule 64 Rule 65
Directed only to the judgments, final orders or resolutions of the Directed to any tribunal, board or officers
COMELEC and COA; exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
Filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment; Filed within 60 days from notice of the
judgment;
The filing of a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new The period within which to filed the petition
trial if allowed, interrupts the period for the filing of the petition if the motion for reconsideration or new
for certiorari. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may trial is denied, is 60 days from notice of the
file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not denial of the motion.
be less than 5 days reckoned from the notice of denial.
Prohibition Injunction
Always the main action May be the main action or just a provisional remedy
Directed against a court, a tribunal exercising judicial Directed against a party
or quasi-judicial functions
Ground must be the court acted without or in excess Does not involve a question of jurisdiction
of jurisdiction
Prohibition Mandamus
To prevent an act by a respondent To compel an act desired
May be directed against entities exercising judicial or May be directed against judicial and non-judicial
quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions entities
Extends to discretionary functions Extends only to ministerial functions
Mandamus Quo warranto
Clarifies legal duties, not legal titles Clarifies who has legal title to the office, or franchise
Respondent, without claiming any right to the office, Respondent usurps the office
excludes the petitioner
Requisites
Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus
That the petition is directed The petition is directed against a The plaintiff has a clear legal right to
against a tribunal, board or officer tribunal, corporation, board or the act demanded;
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial person exercising judicial, quasi-
functions; judicial, or ministerial functions;
The tribunal, board or officer has The tribunal, corporation, board or It must be the duty of the defendant
acted without, or in excess of person must have acted without or to perform the act, which is
jurisdiction or with abuse of in excess of jurisdiction or with ministerial and not discretionary,
discretion amounting to lack or grave abuse of discretion because the same is mandated by
excess or jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction; law;
There is no appeal or any plain, There is no appeal or any plain, The defendant unlawfully neglects
speedy and adequate remedy in speedy and adequate remedy in the performance of the duty
the ordinary course of law. the ordinary course of law. enjoined by law;
Accompanied by a certified true Accompanied by a certified true There is no appeal or any plain,
copy of the judgment or order copy of the judgment or order speedy and adequate remedy in the
subject of the petition, copies of subject of the petition, copies of all ordinary course of law.
all pleadings and documents pleadings and documents relevant
relevant and pertinent thereto, and pertinent thereto, and sworn
and sworn certification of non- certification of non-forum
forum shopping under Rule 46. shopping under Rule 46.
Injunctive relief
(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. 12, 2007).
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 65)
Called petition for review on certiorari, is a mode of A special civil action that is an original action and not a
appeal, which is but a continuation of the appellate mode of appeal, and not a part of the appellate
process over the original case; process but an independent action.
Seeks to review final judgments or final orders; 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 lack of jurisdiction;
Filed within 15 days from notice of judgment or final Filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment,
order appealed from, or of the denial of petitioner’s order or resolution sought to be assailed and in case a
motion for reconsideration or new trial; 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 justifiable Extension no longer allowed;
reasons
Does not require a prior motion for reconsideration; 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 The tribunal, board, officer exercising judicial or quasi-
party as the petitioner and the adverse party as the judicial functions is impleaded as respondent
respondent without impleading the lower court or its
judge;
Filed with only the Supreme Court May be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or Regional Trial Court
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.
(1) The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. 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
(1) 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).
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 compensation to be paid.
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
(1) 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).
(2) 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; Commissioner’s report; Court action upon commissioner’s 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).
(3) 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).
(4) 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).
Deficiency judgment
(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.
(2) 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 debtor’s 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 the principal debtor.
Prescription of action
(1) Prescription of action does not run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owner or co-heirs as long
as there is a recognition of the co-ownership expressly or impliedly (Art. 494).
(2) 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 co-ownership and the co-owners
are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership.
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).
Pleadings allowed
(1) The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaint, compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim pleaded
in the answer, and the answers thereto. All pleadings shall be verified (Sec. 4).