Special Civil Actions under Rules of Court (PH LAW)

1. Two or more claimants with adverse or conflicting claims

2. Involving same subject matter

3. Made against the same person

4. Plaintiff has no claim upon the subject matter or if he has an interest at all, such interest is not disputed by the claimants.

Depends on what is involved in the controversy. If a sum of money is the issue, the amount will determine the jurisdiction and be filed in the RTC or MTC. If the action is about performance of an obligation, which is incapable of pecuniary estimation, it should be filed in the RTC.

Yes, if the interest of justice so require.

1. Impropriety of the interpleader action

2. other appropriate grounds under Rule 16

The movant may file his answer within the remaining period from which he should have filed his answer, however, it shall not be less than 5 days from notice of denial

No. The costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff in the action is recoverable from the defendant who loses in the action and is found to have cause the unnecessary litigation

It is res judicata as to B, but not as to A.

B may raise res judicata as a defense because the claim for reimbursement is a compulsory counterclaim against B being the opposing party in the Interpleader case, therefore, the relief sought had already been decided on when the RTC ruled in favor of C.

A complainant in an interpleader case is not a party to the case, and thus, cannot raise res judicata as a defense against claims made by the conflicting claimants against the complainant

There is no litis pendentia because there is no identity or similarity of parties in the nullification of deed of dation in payment case and the interpleader case since Lessee is not a party to the nullification case. There is also no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.

Interpleader is an original action wherein the plaintiff has no interest in the subject-matter of the action, while intervention is an ancillary action wherein a third person seeks permission from the court to make himself a party of a case.

The real parties are those interpleaded, not the person who initiated the interpleader case.

1. Subject matter of controversy is a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, stature, executive order or regulation of ordinance.

2. Terms of documents and validity are DOUBTFUL and require judicial construction.

3. No breach of documents in question.

4. Actual or justiciable controversy between whom interests are adverse.

5. Ripe for judicial determination

6. Adequate relief is not available through other means.

1. Filiation, not based on deed, will, contract or instrument.

2. Court decisions.

3. Determination of whether as student is entitled to Latin honors.

4. Declaration of citizenship or a registration certificate.

It is the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over actions for declaratory reliefs as it is one incapable of pecuniary estimation.

No, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over actions for declaratory relief even if questions of law is involved.

The requirements of an action for declaratory relief are as follows:

1. There must be a justiciable controversy.

2. The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse.

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

4. The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.

The decision is a nullity.

It should not be dismissed, but converted into ordinary action.

No. The petition for declaratory relief became unavailable by EO's enforcement and implementation. The closure and demolition of the hotel rendered futile any possible guidelines that may be issued by the trial court for carrying out the directives in the challenged EO.

THIRD PARTY complaint is not proper because the issue in declaratory relief is only interpretation.

Yes, as long as it is based on or arising from the same transaction, subject matter of the petition.

It is when litigation is inevitable, or when administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Yes, except in actions falling under the second paragraph of Section 1 of this Rule. The court can refuse only if the court determined that any decision would not terminate the controversy or it is not necessary and proper under the circumstances.

They are REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT, CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP, QUIETING OF TITLE OR REMOVAL OF CLOUD THEREFROM.

It is an action to reform an instrument evidencing the contract, the purpose of which is to reflect the true intention of the parties.

No. In reformation of instrument, the issue is that the instrument does not reflect the agreement because of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.

If caused by a vitiated consent, the proper remedy is to annul the contract.

Yes (Art. 1364 Civil Code)

1. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed.

2. Wills

3. The REAL agreement is void.

The lapse of the redemption period.

Quieting of title is brought to remove a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein.

It is when an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that appears to be valid or effective, but is in truth an in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, and unenforceable.

Quieting of Title is quasi in rem since it deals with the status, ownership, or liability of a particular property.

It depends on the assessed value of the property involved. If the value exceed 400,000, then the RTC may have jurisdiction.

The proper remedy is to institute an action for declaratory relief before the regional trial court, provided the requirements are all present.

If the person it is filed against is in actual possession of the disputed property.

1. The petition is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

3. There is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding.

No, it is not a mode of appeal but an ORIGINAL action.

No. The order was purely administrative or executive, not in exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Petition is improper because the Revenue Regulation is not an exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial function, but quasi-legislative.

Yes. In a similar case, the SC ruled that it is proper for certiorari because the EO was in the nature of a quasi-judicial act.

No, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus do not generally lie to legislative and executive branches that are exercising within their official function.

No, such question must first be brought before the proper trial courts or the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try and resolve factual questions.

No. Administrative agencies that are only exercising quasi-judicial but not consummate judicial power do not have the power to issue writs of certiorari.

1. Acting without jurisdiction

(Does NOT have legal power to determine the case)

2. Acting in excess of jurisdiction

(Having been clothed with power to determine, it oversteps its authority)

3. Acting with grave abuse of discretion

(Committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in a capricious, arbitrary, despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction)

A Motion for Reconsideration in the lower courts of the act or order complained of.

(The purpose for this requirement is to enable the lower court, in the first instance, to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of the higher court.)

1. Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction

2. The same questions were already raised and passed in the lower courts:

   [Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court]

3. There is URGENT NECESSITY:

   [Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the petition is perishable]

4. where, under the circumstances, a MR would be useless.

5. where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief

6. where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable

7. where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process

8. where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object

9. where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.

An order is interlocutory when it does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to still be decided by the trial court.

Yes, it may be the subject matter of certiorari because they are not appealable.

Yes. One of the requirement for a valid petition for certiorari under Rule 45 is that there are no appeal, nor plain, speedy, adequate remedy. Therefore, unappealable final decisions, for example those found in Rule 41, Section 1, can only be remedied by certiorari.

1. Declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.

2. Decision of the OMB in criminal cases

3. Decision of the DOJ on a Petition for Review where the imposable penalty is NOT death, RP or LI. [Remedy is certiorari to the CA]

4. Decision of NLRC [Remedy is certiorari to the CA]

Yes, if such petition for certiorari will be considered to be the most plain, speedy and adequate remedy for the defendant-appellant.

No. Under the Rules, only a person aggrieved or directly injured by the order or decision may file the petition. Any person who only feels injured by the lower court’s order or decision cannot avail the remedy.

Generally, no, however, if the indispensable party was deprived of his right to participate, he may be allowed to file a certiorari even if he was a non-party, as ruled by the SC in the similar case of Crisologo vs. JEWM.

Intended to prevent a person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions ”to desist from further proceedings in an action or matter.

It is not proper because these acts are not judicial or quasi-judicial NOR ministerial.

Generally, no, however, there is an exception, when the act is patently illegal or unconstitutional.

Summary:

Certiorari deals with annulling or modifying orders, judgments, and resolutions.

Prohibition deals preventing actions or proceedings.

Mandamus deals with the performance of an ministerial act.

Differences:

a. “With respect to the purpose of the writ, certiorari is intended to correct an act performed by the respondent; prohibition is intended to prevent the commission or carrying out of an act; while mandamus is intended to compel the performance of the act desired.

b. With respect to the act sought to be controlled, certiorari extends only to discretionary acts; prohibition, to discretionary and ministerial acts; and mandamus, to ministerial acts.

c. With respect to the respondent, certiorari lies only against a respondent exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, while both prohibition and mandamus are available against respondents who exercise judicial and/or non-judicial functions.”

To command a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to perform an act which the law specifically enjoins as duty, the performance of which the respondent has been unlawfully neglecting.

A tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person who unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other person is entitled (Section 3, Rule 65)

Mandamus will not lie:

1. To enforce purely private contract rights

2. Against a private individual UNLESS the obligation is in the nature of a public or quasi-public duty

Generally, this is not allowed.

Exception:

In extreme situations generally in criminal cases, mandamus lies to compel the performance by the fiscal of what ostensibly are discretionary functions where, by reason of grave abuse on his part, his actuations are tantamount to a willful refusal to perform a duty specifically required by law.

Yes, courts can be mandated to give due course to an appeal which it erroneously dismissed, but not to dismiss an appeal. This is the proper function of the appellate court.

Yes. Where the issue of damages was raised in the trial court in the same petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and the adverse party had ample opportunity to defend itself, the court may validly award damages.

A writ of mandamus will only issue to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, therefore, mandamus will NOT lie to compel a discretionary action.

No, because registration of property is not a ministerial act which Mandamus can compel.

Not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution.

In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

No more extension allowed.

• The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Hierarchy of Courts

• CTA has certiorari jurisdiction over incidents of a case involving a tax protest before a Regional Trial Court

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. (Rule 65, Section 7)

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, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding in the case. (Rule 65, Section 7)

It is the nature of the functions, rather than the office, board, or body themselves.

Yes, it is still proper to file for certiorari to correct errors of jurisdiction and acts of grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

No, because of the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Court, such concurrence of jurisdiction does not give the petitioners unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. They must still follow the proper hierarchy of courts.

The title to a public office may not be assailed collaterally, even through a petition for mandamus, certiorari, or prohibition. It may only be contested directly, by quo warranto proceedings

No, it should not be an special civil action for mandamus but one for specific performance. Mandamus can only compel a ministerial duty, not a duty arising from a contractual obligation.

Rule is applicable to proceedings involving a public office, position or franchise.

For example:

1. Usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position, or franchise.

2. Does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office

3. Association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to so act. (Rule 66, Sec. 1.)

Quo warranto is the remedy to try disputes with respect to the title of a public office.

Mandamus if there is no dispute as to who has title to the public office but the adverse party, without lawful ground, prevents the rightful occupant from assuming the office.

No. A person who has been unlawfully excluded can file a Mandamus only if the person excluding him is not usurping his position.

If the person excluding is doing so by usurping the position, the proper remedy is Quo Warranto

1. Solicitor General

2. Public Prosecutor

3. Private Person

No. In this case, he does not need the intervention of the SolGen or prosecutor or prior permission from the court.

Both are a proper actions. Quo warranto and impeachment are not mutually exclusive remedies and may even proceed simultaneously.

The existence of other remedies against the usurper does not prevent the State from commencing quo warranto proceeding.

Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed from office.

Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution of a quo warranto action against an impeachable officer. After all, a quo warranto petition is predicated on grounds distinct from those of impeachment. The former questions the validity of a public officer's appointment while the latter indicts him for the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the office he holds.

No. The Court held that only a person entitled to the position can initiate a quo warranto proceeding, and since Brito was not qualified, he could not challenge Arroyo's appointment.

The Court also found that the execution of the judgment would be impossible, inequitable, and unjust due to Brito's ineligibility and disqualification.

For quo warranto commenced by the Solicitor General: SC, CA, or RTC Manila

For quo warranto in the first six sections of Rule 66: SC, CA, or RTC where respondent or any of the respondents resides

Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over quo warranto cases related to EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A

For elective positions, COMELEC

Where an elective office is involved, the occupant who was declared ineligible or disloyal will be unseated but the petitioner will not be declared the rightful occupant of the office.

In appointive offices, the court will oust the person illegally appointed and will order the seating of the person who was legally appointed and entitled to the office.

In quo warranto proceedings affecting elective offices, the issue is the eligibility of the respondent. In those involving appointive offices, the issue is the validity of the appointment.

• The basis for quo warranto is that the occupant is disqualified from holding the office by reason of ineligibility or disloyalty.

• An election contest challenges the right of a person to hold office on the ground of irregularities in the conduct of the elections for said office

• If the quo warranto proceeding succeeds, the respondent will be ousted but the petitioner will not assume the office. In election contests, the successful protestant will assume the office if he had obtained a plurality of the valid votes.

Within 1 year after the cause of such ouster or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position arose. (Rule , Section 11)

Exception: The one-year prescriptive period for filing an action for quo warranto does not apply when the petitioner is not a mere private individual pursuing a private interest, but the government itself seeking relief for a public wrong and suing for public interest.

Action for damages should be filed within 1 year from entry of judgment establishing petitioner's right to office.

The one-year period would not be interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy, because no one is compelled to resort to administrative remedies since public interest requires that the right to public office should be determined as speedily as possible.

Answer 1:

Yes. A person instituting Quo Warranto proceedings on his or her own behalf must aver and be able to show that he or she is entitled to the office in dispute. Without such averment or evidence of such right, the action may be dismissed at any stage. (Jurisprudence)

Answer 2:

When quo warranto petition is filed by an individual in his or her own name, he or she must be able to prove that he or she is entitled to the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof. (jurisprudence)

No. The SC held in a similar case that notwithstanding the finality of a decision in a quo warranto case in favor of the petitioner, the said decision cannot be executed if a supervening event occurs which renders the petitioner ineligible to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held by the respondent.

The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property for public use upon payment of just compensation.

Eminent domain in an inherent power of the state which covers all forms of private property, tangible or intangible, and includes rights which are attached to land.

Expropriation is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain. It is the forced taking of private property, the landowner being really without a ghost of chance to defeat the case of the expropriating agency.

No. Under Rule 67, expropriation can be applied against real and personal properties.

No. RTC has jurisdiction because an expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

It does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private property for public use

No, the national government does not need for legislation for expropriation since it is an inherent power of the state.

No, an expropriation proceeding is unnecessary in this case.

When a property owner voluntarily agrees to the taking of his property by the government for public use, he/she waives his/her right to expropriation proceedings.

Yes. Nothing precludes the government from entering into a negotiated sale with a private landowner to acquire a property to be devoted for a public purpose.

In case of failure to arrive at a perfected sale, then expropriation proceedings may commence.

Requisites:

1. The property taken must be private property.

2. There must be genuine necessity to take the private property.

3. The taking must be for public use.

4. There must be payment of just compensation.

5. The taking must comply with due process of law.

Property already owned by the State may still be the subject of expropriation, even when it is under the possession of private individuals, or if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners.

Patrimonial property assumes the nature of alienable private property, and thus is a proper subject of expropriation.

Examples: In Mangotara, a parcel of land reserved for a government agency was then occupied by a private corporation. The Supreme Court ruled that expropriation proceedings must be instituted to determine the just compensation for the private corporation’s occupancy rights.