Special Civil Actions and Provisional Remedies - Atty. Senga PDF

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
AND PROVISIONAL
REMEDIES
Atty. Francesca Lourdes M. Señga
Special Civil Actions
◦ governed by the rules of ordinary civil actions, subject to
specific rules prescribed for special civil actions
◦ instituted by the filing of a complaint or a petition
◦ court that has jurisdiction to hear and decide on these special

civil actions varies
◦ venue of special civil actions are governed by the rules on

venue under the ordinary rules of civil actions, unless otherwise
specified or prescribed by the special rules
◦Interpleader, Rule 62;
◦Declaratory relief and similar remedies, Rule 63;
◦Review of judgments and final orders of the
Commission on Elections and the Commission on
Audit, Rule 64;
◦Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Rule 65;
◦Quo Warranto, Rule 66;
◦Expropriation, Rule 67;
◦Foreclosure of real estate mortgage, Rule 68;
◦Partition, Rule 69;
◦Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, Rule 69;
◦Contempt, Rule 71;
◦Petition for Writ of Kalikasan, Rule 7, Part III, Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases;
◦Petition for Continuing Mandamus, Rule 8, Part III,
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
Interpleader
◦JURISDICTION - Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
have original jurisdiction over actions for
interpleader, depending on the nature and
the value of the subject or property in
dispute
Interpleader
◦complaint against 2 or more defendants
who have conflicting claims
◦protect a person not against double liability

but against double vexation in respect of
one liability
Interpleader
Interpleader
◦INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE: conflicting claims
upon the same subject matter are or may
be made against the plaintiff-in-interpleader
who claims no interest whatever in the
subject matter or an interest which in whole
or in part is not disputed by the claimants
(Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Metro
Container Corporation, G.R. No. 127913, 13
September 2001)
Interpleader
◦fund, thing or duty over which the parties
assert adverse claims must be one and the
same and derived from the same source
Interpleader
◦Instituted by Complaint
◦2 or more defendants with conflicting claims
Interpleader
◦No cause of action - plaintiff claims no
interest in the subject matter of the case, or
may have an interest in the subject matter
provided that said interest, in whole or in
part, is not disputed by the conflicting
claimants or the defendants
Interpleader - Examples
◦Sheriff – conflicting claims on mortgaged
property sought to be foreclosed
Interpleader - Examples
◦Lessee – payment of rentals when there
are conflicting claimants on property
leased
Consignation
◦for consignation to be considered as
payment, there must be prior tender of
payment to the creditor who refuses to
accept it, among others – mandatory
requirements
◦Subject to exceptions
Consignation – Exceptions (Prior
Tender of Payment Needed)
(1) when the creditor is absent or unknown, or
does not appear at the place of payment;
(2) when the creditor is incapacitated to
receive the payment at the time it is due;
(3) when, without just cause, the creditor
refuses to give a receipt;
Consignation – Exceptions (Prior
Tender of Payment Needed)
(4) when two or more persons claim the same
right to collect; and
(5) when the title of the obligation has been
lost. (Civil Code, Art. 1256)
Consignation v. Interpleader
◦Consignation
◦effect of payment
◦Payment of docket fees
◦Interpleader
◦Court determines, protection against
double vexation
◦Docket fees – lien on subject matter, unless
otherwise ordered
Interpleader
◦plaintiff shall pay for the docket
and other legal fees as required
under the rules
◦ lien or charge on the subject

matter of the action, unless
otherwise ordered by the court
Interpleader
◦Summons – jurisdiction over defendants –
Rule 14 (Service of Summons)
◦Order directing defendants to interplead

Interpleader
◦Rule 11 – Responsive Pleadings
◦15 days, unless different period fixed by
courts
◦Permissive/compulsory counterclaims
◦Third-party complaints
◦Cross-Claims
◦Motion to Dismiss within the same period
What happens if you fail to assert
your compulsory counterclaims in
the interpleader case?
It may be barred from being raised
in a subsequent litigation, by
reason of res judicata
May third parties intervene in an action
for interpleader?
Yes, there is no prohibition. Third parties
may intervene provided that they meet
the requirements under Rule 19.
Interpleader - Default
Ordinary Rules Interpleader
Court, upon motion, to declare defendant in default
• Court shall proceed to • Court shall render
render judgment judgment barring the
granting the claimant defaulting defendant
such relief as his from any claim in
pleading may warrant, respect to the subject
unless, court in its matter
discretion, requires
claimant to submit
evidence
Interpleader - Default
Ordinary Rules Interpleader
Common cause of action • Does not apply
vs. several defendants, because there are
some answer conflicting claims
• Try case against all
upon answers filed
• Render judgment upon
evidence presented
Motion to Dismiss
◦Grounds under Rule 16
◦Additional Ground – impropriety of
interpleader
◦Period to file answer from denial
Impropriety of Interpleader
◦No conflicting claims (Beltran’s v. People’s
Homesite and Housing Corporation, G.R. No. L-
25138, 28 August 1996 )
Impropriety of Interpleader
◦corporation had already been made
independently liable by reason of a final
judgment in a previous civil case
◦interpleader involving the same matter
subject of the previous civil case would be a
collateral attack upon the final judgment in
said civil case (Wack-Wack Golf & Country Club,
Inc. v. Won, G.R. No. L-23851, 26 March 1976 )
What is the effect of the dismissal of
an interpleader complaint (as
when the purpose thereof has
ceased to exist) on the
counterclaim?
It has the effect of dismissal of the compulsory
counterclaim provided that counterclaim
arose out of or was necessarily connected
with the recourse to the remedy of
interpleader. (United Coconut Planters Bank v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 726645-65,
20 March 1990)
Declaratory Relief and Similar
Remedies
Rule 63 enumerates 4 special civil actions:
◦Declaratory Relief
◦Other Similar Remedies:
◦Reformation of Instrument;
◦Quieting of Title; and
◦Consolidation of Title
Declaratory Relief
◦Paragraph 1, Section 1, Rule 63
◦the construction or validity of a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument, statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance or any
other governmental regulation, or the
declaration of rights or duties thereunder,
before any breach or violation thereof
Similar Remedies
◦second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 63
deals with remedies similar to declaratory
relief.
◦also result in the adjudication of the legal
rights of the litigants, often without the need
of execution to carry the judgment into
effect
Jurisdiction
Declaratory Relief – RTC – incapable of
pecuniary estimation
Reformation of Instrument – RTC – incapable

of pecuniary estimation
Quieting of Title and Consolidation of

Ownership – MTC/RTC – assessed value
Declaratory Relief
◦ prevent the parties from being involved in an
ordinary civil case
◦ interpret or to determine the validity of the written
instrument and to seek a judicial declaration of the
parties' rights or duties thereunder, prior to any
breach thereof
◦ If there is any allegation of a right violated by
another, action ceases to be SCA for declaratory
relief and becomes an ordinary civil action
May there be a prayer for
damages in an action for
declaratory relief?
No, because there is no breach yet or right
violated. This is another instance where there
is no cause of action by definition under
ordinary rules.
Declaratory Relief - Requisites
◦ (1) the subject matter of the controversy must be a
deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
◦ (2) the terms of said documents and the validity
thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction;
◦ (3) there must have been no breach of the
documents in question;
Declaratory Relief - Requisites
◦ (4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy
or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons
whose interests are adverse;
◦ (5) the issue must be ripe for judicial determination;
and
◦ (6) adequate relief is not available through other
means or other forms of action or proceeding, or
there is no breach or violation of a deed, will
contract, or other written instrument, statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance or any
other governmental regulation
When is an action for declaratory
relief considered as ripe for judicial
determination?
◦litigation is inevitable
◦there is no adequate relief available in any
other form or proceeding.
◦Not merely based on theoretical or
hypothetical questions because our courts
are not advisory courts. (Bayan
Telecommunications, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. No.
161140, 31 January 2007)
◦
No justiciable controversy
Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357,
April 28, 2004.
May there be an action for
declaratory relief to determine the
rights of parties to a judgment issued
by a court?
◦No. Court decisions are not among those
mentioned in Section 1, Rule 63.
◦Rules of Court already provides for the ways by
which an ambiguous or doubtful decision may be
corrected or clarified without need of resorting to
Rule 63
◦ Motion for Reconsideration/ Motion for New Trial to
correct the defect
◦ Motion for rendition of clarificatory judgment in case
of ambiguity
◦Otherwise, will violate res judiciata
◦doctrine of judicial stability or
noninterference
◦ Courts and tribunals with the same or equal
authority — even those exercising concurrent and
coordinate jurisdiction — are not permitted to
interfere with each other's respective cases, much
less their orders or judgment (DILG v. Gatuz, G.R.
No. 191176, 14 October 2015)
Discretion to Refuse to Declare Rights
◦ Section 5, Rule 63
◦ Only applies to declaratory relief, not to similar
remedies
◦ Motu proprio or upon motion
◦ when the decision will not terminate the uncertainty
or controversy which gave rise to the action
◦ when declaration or constructions is not necessary
and proper under the circumstances
May there be an execution of a
judgment rendered in a declaratory
relief action?
Generally, no. There is nothing to
execute as it only involves a
declaration of rights. However, the
SC in some instances allowed
execution in a Declaratory Relief
Case.
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, et al , G.R. No. 126911, 30
April 2003
◦ PDIC filed declaratory relief on insurability of time deposits

◦ In their Answer, Respondents set up a counterclaim, asking payment
of deposits
◦ while a declaratory relief does not essentially entail an executory
process, there is nothing in its nature that would prohibit a
counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or contract
subject of the complaint
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, et al , G.R. No. 126911, 30
April 2003
◦a special civil action is after all not essentially
different from an 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
Department of Budget and Mangement, et al., v.
Manila’s Finest Retirees Association, Inc., et al. , G.R.
No. 169466, 9 May 2007.
◦ Integrated National Police retirees sought declaratory
judgment if they are considered as Philippine National
Police retirees entitled to same retirement benefits as
PNP retirees under Republic Act No. 6975,
◦ with a prayer that the respondents-agencies effect the
immediate adjustments on INP retirees’ entitlement to
said benefits – was not objected to
No. 169466, 9 May 2007.
◦ execution of judgments in a petition for declaratory
relief is not necessarily indefensible, and cited
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, et al
◦ grant of immediate adjustment forestalled
multiplicity of suits, which would entail a long and
arduous process.
No. 169466, 9 May 2007.
◦ INP retirees’ advanced years - they can hardly
afford another protracted proceedings
What is the effect of breach that
takes place during pendency of
action for declaratory relief?
It will be converted to an ordinary
action.
Parties allowed to file pleadings as

may be necessary or proper, such as
the filing of an amended complaint
that alleges the cause of action
What is Quieting of Title?
Quieting of Title
◦removal of any cloud of doubt or
uncertainty with respect to real property
◦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
Quieting of Title
(1) the plaintiff has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject of the action; and
(2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy
Reformation of Instrument
◦court determines whether the parties' written
agreement reflects their true intention
◦Pacto de Retro when in fact Equitable
Mortgage
Consolidation of Title
◦consolidation of ownership of real property in the
vendee by virtue of the vendor's failure to
comply with the provisions of Article 1616 of the
Civil Code shall not be recorded in the Registry
of Property without a judicial order, after the
vendor has been duly heard. (Art. 1607, Civil
Code)
◦vendor a retro named respondent in the petition
for consolidation of ownership and duly
summoned and heard
May the determination of citizenship
be the subject of a declaratory
relief?
No. There is no proceeding
authorized by the law or by the Rules
of Court, for the judicial declaration
of the citizenship of an individual.
(Republic v. Batuigas, G.R. No. 183110, 7 October
2013; Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-16108, 31 October
1961)
Review Of Judgments And Final Orders
Or Resolutions Of The Commission On
Elections And The Commission On Audit
JURISDICTION
◦ COMELEC, and the COA - the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from
receipt of a copy thereof
◦ CSC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions may
be taken to the Court of Appeals within 15 days
from notice – Rule 43
Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
Resolutions of Comelec and COA
◦ Rule 64 is a mode of review or an appeal from a
judgment, final order or resolution of COMELEC and
COA, acting as quasi-judicial bodies.
◦ Rule 64 (mode of review) provides that petitioner
should adopt the pleading under Rule 65 (original
action)
◦ mode of review from the COMELEC and COA is an
appeal using the pleadings under Rule 65
Review of Judgments and Final Orders
or Resolutions of Comelec and COA
◦ Period for filing is 30 days from notice of the judgment,
final order or resolution sought to be reviewed (Sec. 2,
Rule 64)
◦ The fresh-period rule applicable under Rule 65 is not
available under Rule 64
Review of Judgments and Final
Orders or Resolutions of Comelec
and COA
◦period under Section 3 of Rule 64 is based on
Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution,
which expressly requires that the COMELEC’s
rules of procedure should expedite the
disposition of election cases
Outright Dismissal of Petition
◦if the Court finds that the petition is not
sufficient in form and substance,
◦if it was filed manifestly for delay, or
◦the questions raised are too unsubstantial to
warrant further proceeding
Promento v Estrada, et al., G.R. No.
191988, 31 August 2010
Rule 65
◦Regional Trial Court
◦Court of Appeals
◦Supreme Court
◦Sandiganbayan
◦COMELEC
Rule 65
◦Scope of Applicability
◦Section 21 (1) of BP 129, in relation to Section
13.
May the court treat a Rule 65
Petition as Rule 45 Petition?
In the spirit of liberality, when:
(1)the petition for certiorari was filed within the
reglementary period to file a petition for review
on certiorari;
(2) the petition avers errors of judgment; and
(3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the
relaxation of the rules (Republic v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 129846, 18 January 2000; Navarez v. Abrogar
III, G.R. No. 191641, 2 September 2015)
Rule 65 – A prohibited pleading
◦When filed against interlocutory order in
◦Summary Procedure
◦Small Claims
◦Amparo
◦Habeas Data
Certiorari – Rule 65 and Constitution
◦Rule 65 -when any tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law
Certiorari – Rule 65 and Constitution
◦Constitution - judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice to determine
whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government.
(Sec. 1, Art. VIII, Constitution)
Rule 65
◦Extraordinary writ
◦Only when there is grave abuse if discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
◦Only when there is no appeal, or any plain
speedy adequate remedy
◦Will not automatically suspend proceedings
a quo
No appeal, or any plain speedy
adequate remedy
◦ Assail basis for summary judgment – remedy is appeal
◦ In intra-corporate cases, the Interim Rules of Procedure for
Intra-corporate a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited
pleading, remedy is thus certiorari
◦ SOJ (probable cause), Pet Rev, denial, MR, denial, Rule 65 CA
◦ Ombudsman criminal preliminary investigation, denial
of MR, Rule 65 SC
No appeal, or any plain speedy
adequate remedy
◦ Ombudsman Administrative
◦ decisions imposing light penalties (public censure,
reprimand, suspension of not more than one
month or fine equivalent to one month salary) and
those absolving the respondent of the charge are
final and appealable – Rule 65 CA
◦ If not light, Rule 43 CA
Certiorari
◦Not automatically suspend proceedings
◦Person aggrieved - not to be construed to
mean that any person who feels injured by
the lower court's order or decision can
question said court’s disposition via certiorari
Certiorari
◦Private and Public Respondents
◦Public respondent – nominal but
indispensable
◦Inextendible period for for filing
Certiorari
◦Disciplinary measures for patently dilatory
petitions
◦court may impose motu proprio, based on res
ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or
measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory
and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari.
◦Award of damages – not specifically provided
but may be granted (not disallowed)
Prohibition
Prohibition
◦ To restrain an act alleged to be illegal
◦ proper remedy against usurpation of jurisdiction or
power by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise
of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its
cognizance the inferior court transgresses the
bounds prescribed to it by the law, or where there
is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary
course of law by which such relief can be
obtained
Prohibition
(1)the impugned act must be that of a tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions;
(2)the respondent judge or tribunal issued the order
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion, or the assailed interlocutory
order is patently erroneous; and
(3)there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law
Prohibition
◦Cannot restrain acts fait accompli
◦May be coupled with a petition for certiorari
◦May be treated as certiorari
Mandamus
◦if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or
person unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act, which the law enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station
Mandamus
(1) petitioner must show a clear legal right to
the act demanded;
(2) respondent must have the duty to perform
the act because the same is mandated by
law;
(3) respondent unlawfully neglects the
performance of the duty enjoined by law;
Mandamus
(4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not
discretionary; and
(5) there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law
Mandamus
Proper to compel ministerial duty
◦Local Civil Registrar – Marriage License
◦RTC Ejectment execution pending appeal
◦Prosecutor/ DOJ – to act on a complaint
Mandamus
◦cannot be used to enforce contractual
obligations
◦Other remedies under law
◦not intended to aid a plaintiff in the
enforcement of a mere contract right, or to
take the place of the other remedies
provided by law for the adjudication of
disputed claims
Writ of Kalikasan
◦extraordinary remedy covering
environmental damage of such magnitude
that will prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces
◦Verified Petition
Writ of Kalikasan
◦(1) there is an actual or threatened violation
of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;
◦(2) the actual or threatened violation arises
from an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or
entity; and
Writ of Kalikasan
◦ (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will
lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in 2 or more cities or
provinces
◦ magnitude of environmental damage is a condition
sine qua non
Writ of Kalikasan
◦ Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the
Court of Appeals
◦ petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of
docket fees
◦ liberalized policy on locus standi
◦ Even if there is just a petitioner, a juridical entity, an
NGO or an accredited public interest group, they
can file a petition on behalf of two or more
provinces or cities
Locus Standi
◦ Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.
◦ International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast
Asia (Phils.), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 &
209430, 8 December 2015 - NGOs and individual
respondents
Locus Standi
◦Section 1, Rule 7 - juridical persons may file
the petition on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated, or threatened
with violation.
Locus Standi
◦ West Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Phil. Industrial
Corp., G.R. No. 194239, 16 June 2015 - filing of a
petition for the issuance of said writ does not require
that a petitioner be directly affected by an
environmental disaster
Burden of Proof for Issuance of
Privilege of Writ of Kalikasan
(1)the environmental laws allegedly violated;
(2)the magnitude of the environmental
damage allegedly caused
Burden of Proof for Issuance of
Privilege of Writ of Kalikasan
Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R.
No. 211010, 7 March 7, 2017
Writ of Kalikasan
◦Petition may include a prayer for the
issuance of a temporary environmental
protection order
◦writ can be issued right away by the court as
long as the allegations in the petition are
complete, in that the petition is meritorious
by itself
Writ of Kalikasan
◦ court shall also issue an order requiring respondents
to file a verified return and not an answer, similar to
petitions for habeas corpus and for the writ amparo
◦ After the issuance of the writ of Kalikasan, even
without hearing the respondent, the court can also
issue a provisional remedy called a cease and desist
order, which is similar to a TRO in civil cases, but has
no expiration date
Writ of Kalikasan
◦verified return must contain the respondent’s
explanation as to his side – similar to omnibus
motion rule
◦If no return, no declaration of default
because a motion to declare respondent in
default is a prohibited motion – court to
proceed to hear petition ex parte
Writ of Kalikasan
◦ After hearing, the court shall issue an order
submitting the case for decision
◦ court may after hearing punish the respondent who
refuses or unduly delays the filing of a return, or who
makes a false return, or any person who disobeys or
resists a lawful process or order of the court for
indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court
Writ of Kalikasan
Discovery measures
(a) ocular inspection order; and
(b) production order for the production or inspection
of documents or things.
◦ the Rules to allow the court sufficient leeway in
acquiring the necessary information to rule on the
issues presented for its resolution, to the end that
the right to a healthful and balanced ecology
may be adequately protected
Writ of Kalikasan
◦ power to appoint friends of the court in order to
shed light on matters requiring special technical
expertise
◦Section 15 (e), Rule 7 expressly prohibits the grant
of damages to individual petitioners in a petition
for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
Writ of Kalikasan - Judgment
◦Permanent Prohibitory Mandatory Injunction
– permanently prohibited from violating or
from doing an act that will violate
environmental laws,
◦Permanently mandatory Injunction -
espondent public official, or government
agency, is given a mandate to enforce
environmental law
Writ of Kalikasan
APPEAL
◦Within 15 days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment or denial of motion for
reconsideration,
◦to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court
Continuing Mandamus
◦ patterned after the mandamus contained in Rule
65, but in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation
or a right therein
◦ there must be a showing of unlawful neglect on the
part of the respondents to perform any act that the
law specifically enjoins as a duty – ministerial
◦ No need to file motion for execution and revival –
periodic reports (return) to ensure compliance
Continuing Mandamus
Jurisdiction
(1) Supreme Court;
(2) Court of Appeals; and
(3) RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory
where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred
Continuing Mandamus
◦ petitioner must prove direct or personal injury arising
from acts attributable to the respondents to be
entitled to the writ
◦ exempt from the payment of docket fees
◦ should be sufficient in form and substance before a
court may take further action; otherwise, the court
may dismiss the petition outright
Continuing Mandamus
(1) an agency or instrumentality of government or its
officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or
unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment
of a right;
(2) the act to be performed by the government agency,
instrumentality or its officer is specifically enjoined by law
as a duty;
Continuing Mandamus
(3) such duty results from an office, trust or
station in connection with the enforcement
or violation of an environmental law, rule or
regulation or a right therein; and
(4) there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the course of law
Continuing Mandamus
◦ Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No.
211010, 7 March 7, 2017
◦ not seek to compel the performance of a ministerial
act, but rather, a discretionary act, i.e., the manner
of implementation of the Road Sharing Principle
◦ cannot be considered an absolute imposition to
encroach upon the province of public respondents
to determine the manner by which this principle is
applied or considered in their policy decision
Continuing Mandamus
◦ If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form
and substance, the court shall issue the writ of
continuing mandamus and require the respondent
to comment on the petition
◦ not necessary that there should have first been a
previous judgment in a separate case finding the
respondents to have violated an environmental law
before the writ of continuing mandamus may be
issued
Continuing Mandamus
◦ During the pendency of the proceedings, the court
may issue such order to expedite the proceedings
and also grant provisional remedies such as a TEPO
for the preservation of rights of the parties
Continuing Mandamus
◦ If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of
the writ of continuing mandamus requiring
respondent to perform an act or series of acts until
the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such
other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the
wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent
Continuing Mandamus
◦ court shall require the respondent to submit periodic
reports detailing the progress and execution of the
judgment
◦ the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or
the appropriate government agency, evaluate and
monitor compliance
Continuing Mandamus
◦ periodic reports shall be contained in partial returns
of the writ
◦ writ of continuing mandamus is a command of
continuing compliance with a final judgment as it
permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment
in order to ensure the successful implementation of
the reliefs mandated under the court's decision.
Quo Warranto
◦demand made by the state upon some
individual to show by what right they
exercise some franchise or privilege
appertaining to the state which, according
to the Constitution and laws of the land,
they cannot legally exercise except by virtue
of a grant or authority from the state
Quo Warranto
◦ title to a public office may not be contested except
directly, by quo warranto proceedings; and it cannot
be assailed collaterally, even through mandamus or a
motion to annul or set aside order
◦ prohibition does not lie to inquire into the validity of
the appointment of a public officer and to
command the alleged intruder to cease from
performing acts pertaining to the questioned office
Quo Warranto
◦ Supreme Court, CA and RTC have concurrent
original jurisdictions over petitions for quo warranto
◦ SC remains a court of last resort, only when there
are special and important reasons that are
clearly and specifically set forth in a petition,
which were absent in this case
Quo Warranto
◦ Sandiganyan may, however, as an exception,
exercise jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto
when it involves an incident arising from, or related
to PCGG cases over alleged ill-gotten wealth within
the context of Section 2, EO 14, RA 7975,
◦ the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction
in all cases involving civil and criminal cases filed
pursuant to and in connection with EO No. 1, 2, 13,
14-A
Quo Warranto
◦Section 5.2 of the Securities Regulations
Code, the RTC has jurisdiction over actions
of quo warranto against corporations, or
against persons who usurp an office in a
corporation, which were previously under
the jurisdiction of SEC, but Rule 66 does not
apply
Quo Warranto
◦ Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-
Corporate Controversies Under RA 8799 applies to
the petitions for quo warranto against corporations,
or against persons who usurp an office in a
corporation.
◦ if the case involves the authority to assume the
office and act as the board of directors and officers
of the corporation, the RTC has jurisdiction over the
case but the Interim Rules and not Rule 66 will apply.
Quo Warranto
VENUE
◦ where the officer sought to be ejected is residing,
and not the residence of the petitioner, unless the
Solicitor General commences the action, in which
case it may be brought in the RTC of Manila, among
others (Section 7, Rule 66)
Quo Warranto
◦ commenced for the Government by the Solicitor
General or the public prosecutor, when directed by
the President of the Philippines, or
Quo Warranto
◦ when upon a complaint or otherwise, he has good
reason to believe that any of the cases specified
under the law exists to warrant the institution of a
quo warranto proceedings, against individuals who
usurp a public office, against a public officer whose
acts constitute a ground for the forfeiture of his
office, and against an association which acts as a
corporation without being legally incorporated
Quo Warranto
◦ action may also be instituted by an individual in his own
name who claims to be entitled to the public office or
position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another
◦ if filed by a private person, he must do so in his own name
prove that he is entitled to the controverted position,
otherwise respondent has a right to the undisturbed
possession of the office
◦ Usurpation - to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and

exercise of power by one without color of title or who is not
entitled by law thereto
Quo Warranto
◦ available as a remedy if it is thought that a
government corporation has offended against its
corporate charter or misused its franchise
◦ in the exercise of sound discretion, the Solicitor
General may suspend or turn down the institution of
an action for quo warranto where there are just and
valid reasons
Quo Warranto
Expeditious Determination
◦ The court in quo warranto proceedings can issue a
summons instructing the recipient thereof to file a
responsive pleading within 5 days rather than the
15-day period generally provided by the rules.
Quo Warranto
◦ Splitting of cause of action allowed
◦ If the court decides the quo warranto case in favor of the
petitioner, the court will oust the respondent and direct that
the office and the records of that office be turned over to the
prevailing party
◦ prevailing party has a right, within 1 year a after the entry of
judgment establishing the petitioner’s right to the office in
question, to claim damages incurred as a result of usurpation
by the ousted respondent public officer.
Quo Warranto
If the court finds for the petitioner and declares the
respondent guilty of usurping, ithe court, in the judgment
may order:
(1) the ouster and exclusion of the defendant from office;
(2) the recovery of costs by plaintiff or relator; and
(3) the determination of the respective rights in and to the
office, position, right, privilege or franchise of all the parties
to the action as justice requires
◦ Judgment does not bind successor
Republic v. Serreno, G.R. No. 237428,
11 May 2018
◦ SC has original jurisdiction over case, and of
transcendental importance
◦ both impeachment and quo warranto may result in
the ouster of the public official, the two proceedings
materially differ. At its most basic, impeachment
proceedings are political in nature, while an action
for quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding
traditionally lodged in the courts
11 May 2018
◦ quo warranto and impeachment may proceed
independently of each other as these remedies are
distinct as to (1) jurisdiction, (2) grounds, (3) applicable
rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4)
limitations.
◦ Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an
invalidly appointed or in validly elected impeachable
official may be removed
from office; for impechable offense, use of word “may”
11 May 2018
◦ 1 – year limitation (Sec. 11, Rule 66) does not lie
against the State
◦ no prudent and just court would allow an
unqualified person to hold public office, much more
the highest position in the Judiciary
◦ Ineligible as nominee and candidate
11 May 2018
◦ Integrity one of the qualifications under constitution
that cannot be waived or bargained away
◦ Compliance with constitutional and statutory
requirement for filing SALN relates to a person’s
integrity – penal violation and breach of ethical
standards set for public officials and employees
◦ Chronically failed to file SALN – not deemed of
proven integrity
11 May 2018
◦Did not submit SALNs also to qualify for
nomination pursuant to JBC Rules
◦JBC cannot violate its own rules
◦Failure to submit to JBC SALN for several
years means Integrity not establishes at time
of application
11 May 2018
◦ Ineligibility not cured by subsequent appointment as
Chief Justice
◦ De facto officer removable through quo warranto
Quo Warranto under OEC
may be filed by any voter with the:
(1) COMELEC, to contest the election of any
member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional,
provincial or city officer;
(2) RTC, to contest the election of any municipal
officer ; and
(3) MTC, to contest the election of a barangay
officer
Quo Warranto under OEC
◦ grounds for the petition for quo warranto under the OEC are
ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
◦ within 10 days from the proclamation of the results of the
election
◦ HRET/SET
Expropriation
◦ procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain.
◦ Eminent domain - inherent power of the state, to take
property for public purpose
◦ Rule 67 if it does not apply to national infrastructure
projects
◦ Covers real or personal property
◦ Covers property whose title is in the name of the Republic
of Philippines but occupied by private individuals
◦ Covers property where title is obscure/ doubtful – cannot
specify real owners (allegation to this effect in complaint
must be made)
Expropriation
◦ an easement of right of way on a private property can be
considered a taking under eminent domain under certain
conditions
◦ when there is material impairment of the value of the property
or prevention of the ordinary uses of the property for an
indefinite period.
◦ The intrusion into the property must be so immediate and
direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the
property and to limit his or her exploitation of it. (NPC v.
Arsoque, G.R. No. 172507, 14 September 2016)
Expropriation
◦ "Taking," in the exercise of the power of eminent
domain, occurs not only when the government
actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner
of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when
there is a practical destruction or material
impairment of the value of his property (NPC v.
Arsoque, G.R. No. 172507, 14 September 2016)
Expropriation
Resorted to only when:
◦ owner of the property refuses to sell or,
◦ agrees to sell the property but cannot reach an
agreement as to the price
Expropriation
Requisites of a valid expropriation are:
(1) taking of private property for public use;
(2) payment of just compensation; and
(3) due process of law is observed in the taking of
the property
Expropriation
◦ first phase involves the determination of the
authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of
eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in
the context of the facts involved in the suit
◦ second phase involved the determination by the
court of the just compensation for the property
sought to be taken
Jurisdiction
◦ In recent cases, the Supreme Court had occasion to
state that an expropriation proceeding or
“condemnation” is a real action and as such, the
jurisdiction depends on the assessed value of the
property (Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty
Development Corporation v. Formaran III, G.R. No.
175914, 10 February 2009; Barrido v. Nonato, G.R.
No. 176492, 20 October 2014; BPI Savings Bank v.
Yujuico, G.R. No. 175796, 22 July 2015)
Jurisdiction
◦the Supreme Court, in its earlier cases, ruled
that an expropriation case is one that is
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
regional trial courts (Bardillon v. Barangay
Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886,
30 April 2003)
Expropriation
◦ Upon filing of the complaint or at anytime thereafter
and after due notice to the defendant, plaintiff shall
have the right to take or enter upon the possession
of the real property involved if he makes a
Preliminary Deposit with the authorized government
depositary
◦ Assessed value for purposes of taxation
Expropriation
◦ 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 Republic of
the Philippines payable on demand to the
authorized government depositary.
◦ If personal property – value provisionally ascertained and
amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by court
◦ Once the preliminary deposit has been made, the
expropriator is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter
of right, and the issuance of said writ becomes ministerial
on the part of the trial court (Biglang-Awa v. Bacalla, G.R.
Nos. 139927-36, November 22, 2000)
◦ After deposit, court to order sheriff/other proper officer to
place the plaintiff in possession of the property and submit a
report thereof to court with service on parties
Writ of Possession
◦ the conduct of feasibility studies, information
campaign and detailed engineering/surveys are
conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ of
possession against the property being expropriated.
Requisites for immediate entry:
(1)the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient
in form and substance; and
(2)the making of a deposit equivalent to the assessed
value of the property subject to expropriation.
May a Defendant offer no objections
as to the first stage and only want to
participate insofar as the second
stage for determination of just
compensation?
Yes. He may file and serve a notice of
appearance and manifestation to the
effect that he has no objections to the
propriety of the institution of the action.
He shall thereafter be entitled to notices,
and shall be entitled to present evidence
as to amount of compensation in the
second stage.
Same thing applies for a defendant who

failed to answer.
Pleadings
PROHIBITED
◦ Counter-Claim
◦ Cross-Claim
◦ Third-party Complaint
◦Motion to dismiss is not permitted in a complaint
for expropriation. Any objection or defense to
the taking of the property of a defendant must
be set forth in an answer (Masikip v. City of Pasig,
G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006
Expropriation
WAIVER
◦ Defenses and objections not alleged, subject to
amendment within 10 days from filing
◦ Without prejudice to right to participate in
determination of just compensation
Order of Expropriation
◦a final order of expropriation may not be issued
prior to a full hearing and resolution of the
objections and defenses of the property owner.
◦ order declaring that the plaintiff has lawful right to
take the property for public use or purpose
described in the complaint.
◦ Objections or defenses against the right of plaintiff
to expropriate are overruled; or
◦ No party appears to defend the case.
◦Denotes the end of first stage
Order of Expropriation
◦ Puts an end to ambiguity regarding the right of the
petitioner to condemn the respondents' properties
◦payment of just compensation is not a
condition sine qua non to the issuance of an
order of expropriation.
◦it is the transfer of title to the land expropriated
that must wait until the indemnity is actually paid
Expropriation
◦ Plaintiff not permitted to dismiss or discontinue the
proceeding except on terms as court deems just
and equitable
◦ Multiple appeals are permitted
◦ appeal may be taken from the order authorizing
expropriation and judgment on the just
compensation to be paid.
Appointment of and Proceedings by
Commissioners
◦ Upon rendition of order of expropriation, court shall appoint
note more than 3 competent disinterested persons as
commissioners to ascertain and report the just
compensation
◦ Nothing in Rule 67 requires that the court consult with the
parties in the expropriation case on who should be
appointed as commissioners
◦ parties may protest the appointment of any of these
commissioners, within ten (10) days from service of the
order of appointment of the commissioners (Sec. 5, Rule
67)
Expropriation
◦ Just compensation is not only the correct
determination of the amount to be paid to the
owner but also the payment of the property within a
reasonable time, i.e., payment within five (5) years
from the finality of the judgment (Republic v. Lim,
G.R. No.161656, June 29, 2005).
◦ JC = FMV + CD – CB
Expropriation
◦ Unless the parties consent to the contrary,
Commissioners shall view and examine the property
sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and
may measure the same;
◦ Assess the consequential damages to the property
not taken and deduct such damages from the
consequential benefits derived by the owner; and
Expropriation
◦ Report to the court its findings as to the just
compensation of the property sought to be
expropriated. Except as otherwise expressly ordered
by the court:
◦ It must be filed with the court within 60 days from notice of
their appointment, which time may be extended in the
discretion of the court;
◦ It shall not be effectual until the court shall have accepted
their report and rendered judgment in accordance with their
recommendations; and
Expropriation
◦ Interested parties may file their objections to the
report within ten (10) days from notice thereof.
◦ Findings of the Commissioners may be disregarded
and the Court may substitute its own estimate of the
value but the latter may only do so for a valid
reason and based on the evidence gathered
(Meralco v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-59791, February 13,
1992).
Expropriation
◦ The order fixing the just compensation on the basis
of evidence before, and findings of, the
commissioners would be final. Party may seek the
reversal of the order by taking an appeal therefrom
(Mun. of Biñan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260, December
22, 1989)
What is the effect of taking without
filing of complaint for expropriation,
and the owner of property files a
complaint for payment of just
compensation?
◦ the expropriator is considered to have violated
procedural requirements, and waived the usual
procedure prescribed in Rule 67, including the
appointment of commissioners to ascertain just
compensation
◦ the provisions of the Rules of Court on ascertainment
of just compensation (i.e., provisions of Rule 67) are
no longer applicable, and a trial before
commissioners is dispensable
Expropriation
◦ The issue of ownership should be litigated in the
expropriation court. The court hearing the
expropriation case is empowered to entertain the
conflicting claims of ownership of the condemned
property and adjudge the rightful owner thereof, in
the same expropriation case (Heirs of Mario Pacres
v. Heirs of Cecilia Ygoña, G. R. No. 174719, May 5,
2010)
Expropriation
◦ The owner of the property subject of the
condemnation proceedings is obliged to remove or
cancel any encumbrance on the property. It is but
right for the government to acquire the property
free from encumbrance (Republic v. PNB, G.R. No.
L-14158, April 12, 1961).
Expropriation
◦ An appeal does not delay the right of the plaintiff to
enter upon the property of the defendant and
appropriate the same for public use.
◦ If order granting condemnation is reversed, owner
shall repossess the property with the right to be
indemnified for all damages sustained due to the
taking
Expropriation
RA 10752 THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACT
◦ State shall ensure that owners of real property
acquired for national government infrastructure
projects are promptly paid just compensation for
the expeditious acquisition of the required right-of-
way for the projects
◦ REPEALED RA 8974
◦ National government Projects - all national
government infrastructure projects and its public
service facilities, engineering works and service
contracts,
◦ Negotiated Sale, if fails, expropriation proceedings
◦ Upon filing of complaint, shall deposit to court in
favor of owner 3 items:
1. 100% of the value of the land based on the current relevant
zonal valuation of the BIR issued not more than three (3)
years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint.
◦ no land classification, the assessor shall be mandated, within 60
days from filing of the expropriation case, to come up with the
land classification and and the corresponding declaration of real
property and improvement for the area
◦ no zonal valuation, or where the current zonal valuation has been
in force for more than 3 years, the BIR is mandated, within the
period of 60 days from the date of filing of the expropriation case,
to conduct a zonal valuation of the area, based on the land
classification done by the city or municipal assessor
◦ in case the completion of a government infrastructure project
is of utmost urgency and importance, and no land
classification or no existing zonal valuation of the area
concerned or the zonal valuation has been in force for more
than 3 years, the implementing agency shall use the BIR zonal
value and land classification of similar lands within the
adjacent vicinity as the basis for the valuation
2. Replacement cost at current market value of the
improvements and structures as determined by the
implementing agency, government financial institution
with adequate experience in property appraisal, and
independent property appraiser accredited by BSP;
3. current market value of crops and trees located within
the property as determined by a government financial
institution or an independent property appraiser to be
selected.
◦Upon compliance with the guidelines
abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue
to the implementing agency an order to take
possession of the property and start the
implementation of the project.
◦ If within 7 working days after the deposit to the court of the
amount, the court has not issued to the implementing
agency a writ of possession for the affected property,
counsel of the implementing agency shall immediately
seek from the court the issuance of the writ of possession.
◦ In the event the owner of the property contests the
implementing agency’s proffered value, the court shall
determine the just compensation to be paid the owner
within 60 days from the date of filing of the expropriation
case.
◦ When the decision of the court becomes final and
executory, the implementing agency shall pay the owner
the difference between the amount already paid and the
just compensation as determined by the court.
Court shall release amount to owner
upon presentation of sufficient proof of
ownership
◦ owner of the property cannot be found, if unknown,
or deceased in cases where the estate has not
been settled, after exerting due diligence, or there
are conflicting claims over the ownership of the
property and improvements and structures thereon –
deposit to the court for the benefit of the person to
be adjudged in the same proceeding as entitled
thereto.
Taxes and Fees Relative to Transfer of
title to Republic of the Philippines
◦implementing agency shall pay the
documentary stamp tax, transfer tax and
registration fees,
◦owner shall pay the capital gains tax and
any unpaid real property tax.
What is the remedy when the
expropriated property is not used for
public purpose – not pursued or
premptorily abandoned?
The former owners, if they so desire, may seek
the reversion of the property, subject to the return of
the amount of just compensation received. In such a
case, the exercise of the power of eminent domain has
become improper for lack of the required factual
justification. (Mactan-Cebu International Airport
Authority v. Lozada, Sr., G.R. No. 176625, 25 February
2010)
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
◦ An action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a
real action; thus, it is the assessed value of the property
which determines jurisdiction. (Norlinda S. Marilag v.
Marcelino V. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892; 22 July
2015)
◦ Jurisdiction – MTC/RTC, depending on assessed value
◦ No need for SPA from mortgagor unlike in extrajudicial
foreclosure
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the
creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against the
debtor-mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt through the filing of
a personal action for collection of sum of money or the
institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security.
These remedies are alternative, not cumulative or successive.
(Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, 22 July 2015)
Judgment on Foreclosure for
Payment or Sale
◦ After trial and after finding the allegations in the
complaint are true
◦ Ascertain amount due the plaintiff and other
charges approved by court and costs
◦ Appealable
Judgment on Foreclosure for
Payment or Sale
Equity of Redemption
◦ Judgment for the amount to be paid to court or
judgment obligee within a period of not less than 90
days but not more than 120 days from entry of
judgment, even after foreclosure sale but before
confirmation (Huerta Alba Resort Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 128567, September 1, 2000)
◦ Mortgagor retains ownership and extinguish
mortgage
Sale of Mortgaged Property
◦ In default of payment – property to be sold at a
public auction
◦ Upon motion, court will order the property sold –
Rule 39, sale of real estate under execution
◦ Sale shall not effect rights of persons holding prior
encumbrances upon the property/part thereof
Sale in Case Debt is Not All Due
◦ As soon as sufficient portion of property sold to pay total
amount and costs due, sale shall terminate
◦ As often as more becomes due for principal or interest and
other valid charges, upon motion, court may order more to be
sold
◦ If cannot sell property in portions without prejudice to parties,
whole shall be sold in first instance, and the entire debt and
cpsts shall be paid, if sale sufficient, and with rebate of interest
if proper
Order of Confirmation of Sale
◦ Upon motion
◦ Operates to divest the rights in the property of all parties to the
action and to vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such
rights of redemption as may be allowed by law
◦ the confirmation retroacts to the date of the
sale [Binalbagan Estate, Inc. vs. Gatuslao, et al., 74 Phil.
128 (1941)].
◦ There is no right of redemption from a judicial foreclosure sale after
the confirmation of the sale, except those granted by banks or
banking institutions as provided by the Genera; Banking Act (Limpin
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70987, September 29,
1988)
◦ Only foreclosure of mortgages to banking institutions (including the
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation) and those made extrajudicially
are subject to legal redemption, by express provision of
statute [Villar vs. Javier de Paderanga, 97 Phil. 608 (1955)]
◦ Example: Sec. 18, RA 3518, Veteran’s Bank Charter
Order of Confirmation of Sale
◦ Upon finality of order/ expiration of period of redemption when
allowed by law, purchaser at auction sale/ last redemptioner
shall be entitled to possession
◦ Unless third party actually holding adversely to judgment
obligor
◦ Obtain a writ of possession, upon motion
Disposition of Proceeds of Sale
◦ Deduct costs of sale
◦ Paid to the person foreclosing the mortgage
◦ Balance after payment, shall be paid to junior
encumbrancers in order of their priority to be
ascertained by court
◦ If no junior encumbrancers – to mortgagor/ duly
authorized agent/ person entitled to it
Junior Encumbrancers
◦ Right to payment can only be given to second mortgagees
who are made parties to the judicial foreclosure.
◦ While a second mortgagee is a proper and in a sense even a
necessary party to a proceeding to foreclose a first mortgage
on real property, he is not an indispensable party, because a
valid decree may be made, as between the mortgagor and
the first mortgagee, without regard to the second mortgage;
◦ the consequence of a failure to make the second mortgagee
a party to the proceeding is that the lien of the second
mortgagee on the equity of redemption is not affected by the
decree of foreclosure (Monzon v. Spouses Relova, G.R. No. 171827,
[September 17, 2008)
Junior Encumbrancers
◦ A subordinate lien holder is a proper, even a necessary,
but not an indispensable, party to a foreclosure proceeding.
◦ A decree of foreclosure in a suit to which the holders of a
second lien are not parties leaves the equity of redemption in
favor of such lien holders unforeclosed and unaffected.
(Looyuko v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102696, 12 July 20001)
◦ mortgagee/purchaser cannot just simply apply the proceeds
of the sale in its favor and deduct from the balance the
respondent's outstanding obligations not secured by the
mortgage. (Philippine Bank of Communications v. Yeung, G.R.
No. 179691, December 4, 2013, 722 PHIL 710-729)
◦ application of the proceeds from the sale of the mortgaged
property to the mortgagor's obligation is an act of payment,
not payment by dation;
◦ it is the mortgagee's duty to return any surplus in the selling
price to the mortgagor.
◦ a mortgagee who exercises the power of sale contained in a
mortgage is considered a custodian of the fund, and, being
bound to apply it properly, is liable to the persons entitled
thereto if he fails to do so.
◦ even though the mortgagee is not strictly considered a trustee
in a purely equitable sense, but as far as concerns the
unconsumed balance, the mortgagee is deemed a trustee for
the mortgagor (LCK Industries Inc. v. Planters Development
Bank, G.R. No. 170606, November 23, 2007)
The disposition of the proceeds of the sale in foreclosure
shall be as follows:
(a) first, pay the costs
(b) secondly, pay off the mortgage debt
(c) thirdly, pay the junior encumbrancers, if any in the
order of priority
(d) fourthly, give the balance to the mortgagor, his
agent or the person entitled to it.
(Spouses Suico v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No.
170215, August 28, 2007)
Will the mortgagee’s retention of
proceeds of sale in excess of what
he is entitled to invalidate the sale?
No. this fact alone will not affect the
validity of the sale but simply give
the mortgagor a cause of action to
recover such surplus. (Spouses Suico
v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No.
170215, August 28, 2007)
Deficiency Judgment
◦ Balance due after sale, upon motion, court shall render
judgment against defendant for any such balance
◦ Defendant may be personally liable to plaintiff
◦ Execution may issue immediately if balance is all due at
time of rendition of judgment
◦ Otherwise entitled to execution as such time as
remaining balance becomes due, which time shall be
stated in judgment
Registration
◦ Certified copy of final order of court confirming sale registered
in registry of deeds
◦ No right of redemption – certificate of title in name of
mortgagor cancelled, new one issued in name of purchaser
◦ If there is right of redemption – certificate of title in name of
mortgagor not cancelled
◦ Certificate of sale and order confirming sale registered and
brief memorandum made by RD upon certificate of title
◦ If redeemed, deed of redemption registered with RD with
brief memorandum on certificate of title
Registration
◦ If not redeemed – final deed of sale executed by
sheriff in favor of purchaser at foreclosure sale
registered
◦ Certificate of title in name of mortgagor cancelled
◦ New one issued in name of purchaser
Registration
◦ Registration of sale not required and superfluous in judicial
foreclosure, only required in extrajudicial foreclosure
(reckoning point for exercise of redemption)
◦ only the equity of redemption is granted to the mortgagor,
except in mortgages with banking institutions.
◦ Failure to register certificate of sale will not invalidate
proceedings
◦ judicial confirmation of sale operated to divest the rights of all
the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the
purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be
allowed by law (Robles v. Yapcinco, G.R. No. 169568, 22
October 2014)
Partition
Partition
◦ Rule 69 contemplates Judicial Partition
◦ Partitions of estates composed of personal property, or
of both real and personal property (Rule 69, Sec. 13)
Partition
◦ All co-owners or co-heirs and persons having an interest in the
property are indispensable parties; as such, an action for
partition will not lie without the joinder of the said parties
◦ Legitimate and illegitimate children entitled to pro-indiviso
share to subject land
◦ If pre-deceased, then their respective heirs whether by right of
representation or in their own capacity should be included
(Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750
11 March 2015)
Partition
◦ the absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present (Quilatan v.
Heirs of Quilatan, G.R. No. 183059, 28 August 2009)
Partition
◦ The first stage - the determination of whether or not a co-
ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper (i.e., not
otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by voluntary
agreement of all the parties interested in the property.
◦ The second stage - commences when it appears that the
parties are unable to agree upon the partition directed by the
court.
◦ In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by the
court with the assistance of not more than 3 commissioners.
Partition
2 ways in which a partition can take place under
Rule 69:
1.by agreement under Section 2, and
2.through commissioners when such agreement
cannot be reached under Sections 3 to 6
Order of Partition
◦ After trial, after court finds that plaintiffs have the right thereto
◦ Order partition among all parties in interest
◦ court must first determine the existence of co-ownership.
◦ action will not lie if the plaintiff has no proprietary interest in
the subject property.
◦ It would be premature to order partition until the question of
ownership is first definitely resolved.
◦ May be appealed by any aggrieved party thereby
Partition by Agreement
◦ If parties are able to agree, make the partition among
themselves by proper instruments of conveyance
◦ Court shall confirm
◦ Instrument and court order shall be recorded in registry of
deeds of the place in which the property is situated
Commissioners
◦ If parties unable to agree on partition
◦ View and examine the estate
◦ Hear parties as to preference
◦ Set apart the property to the parties in lots or parcels
as will be most advantageous and equitable,
having due regard to improvements, situation and
quality of different parts
Commissioners
◦ In partition proceedings, reference to
commissioners is required as a procedural step in
the action and is not discretionary on the part of the
court.
◦ if the parties are unable to agree on a partition, the
trial court should order the appointment of
commissioners. (Dadizon v. Bernadas, G.R. No.
172367, 5 June 2009)
Commissioners
◦ Court order to assign to 1 of the parties willing to take the
property – when made to appear that real estate/ portion
thereof cannot be divided without prejudice to interests of
parties
◦ Provided pays the other parties such amounts as commissioners
deem equitable
◦ Unless 1 of interested parties asks that the property be sold instead
of assigned
◦ Court shall order commissioners to sell at public sale under such
conditions as court may determine
Commissioners
◦ Art. 498 Civil Code – whenever the thing is essentially
indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it
be alotted to one of them who shall indemnify the
others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed
◦ No proceeding before commissioners shall pass title
to property or bind parties until court accepted
report and rendered judgment thereon
Report of Commissioners
◦ Interested parties may file their objections
◦ Actions of the court, upon hearing:
◦ Accept and render judgment in accordance therewith
◦ For cause shown, recommit the same to commissioners for
further report of facts
◦ Set aside and appoint new commissioners
◦ Accept report in part and reject in part
◦ Make such order and render judgment as shall effectuate
fair and just partition
Guardian Ad Litem
◦ With approval of the court
◦ Sec. 5, Rule 96 – court may authorize the guardian
to join in an assent to a partition of real or personal
estate held by ward jointly or in common with others
◦ Authority shall only be granted after hearing
◦ Upon such notice to relatives of ward as court may
direct
◦ Careful investigation as to necessity and propriety
of proposed action
Accounting for Rent and Profits
◦ Party to recover from another his just share of rents
and profits received by such other party from real
estate in question
◦ Judgment shall include an allowance for such rent
and profits
Judgment
◦ If actual partition made, judgment state definitely
by metes and bounds and adequate description
the particular portion of real estate assigned to
each party
◦ Segregation and Physical partition required
Judgment
◦ If assigned to 1upon payment of sum to others –
judgment shall state the fact of such payment and
of the assignment to the party making the payment
◦ Effect of payment – vest in him the whole of the real
estate, free from ay interest on the part of the other
parties to the action
Judgment
◦If sold and sale confirmed by court –
judgment shall state name of purchaser/s
and definite description of parcel of real
estate sold to each purchaser
◦Effect of Judgment – vest real estate in
purchaser/s making the payment free from
claims of any of the parties to the action
Judgment
◦ Certified copy recorded in the RD of place in which real estate
is situated
◦ Expenses of such recording shall be taxed as part of the costs
of action
◦ Shall not prejudice/defeat/destroy the right or title of any
person claiming the real estate involved by title under any
other person or by title paramount to title of parties among
whom partition made
◦ Shall not restrict or prevent persons holding real estate jointly or
in common from making an amicable partition by agreement
and suitable instruments of conveyance without recourse to
an action
Ejectment
◦ Exclusive Original Jurisdiction – MTC
◦ Regardless of amount of damages/unpaid rentals
claimed
◦ Forcible Entry
◦ Unlawful Detainer
◦ 1 year from time cause of action accrues
◦ Summary procedure
Forcible Entry
◦ 1 year from time of taking of possession by force,
intimidation, strategy, threats or 1 year from discovery if by
stealth
◦ Possession is unlawful from the start
◦ Art. 539, Civil Code - A possessor deprived of his
possession through forcible entry may within 10 days from
the filing of the complaint present a motion to secure from
the competent court, in the action for forcible entry, a writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his
possession. The court shall decide the motion within 30
days from the filing thereof.
Unlawful Detainer
◦ Violation of / breach of lease contract
◦ Possession by tolerance
◦ 1 year from demand/notice to vacate
◦ Unless contract provides no need for further demand
◦ Posting notice on premises if no person be found
thereon, and lessee fails to comply after 15 days if
land, or 5 days if buildings
Unlawful Detainer
Implied Lease
◦ Art. 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee should
continue enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the
acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary
by either party has previously been given, it is understood that
there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original
contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687.
The other terms of the original contract shall be revived.
Unlawful Detainer
Art. 1682 - lease of a piece of rural land, when its duration has
not been fixed, is understood to have been for all the time
necessary for the gathering of the fruits which the whole estate
leased may yield in one year, or which it may yield once,
although two or more years have to elapse for the purpose
Unlawful Detainer
Art. 1687 –
◦ year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual;
◦ from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is
weekly; and
◦ from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily.
◦ However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease
has been set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee
has occupied the premises for over 1 year.
◦ If the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer period
after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In case of
daily rent, the courts may also fix a longer period after the lessee has
stayed in the place for over one month
Pleadings Allowed
◦Complaint
◦Answer
◦Compulsory Counterclaim
◦Cross-Claim
◦All pleadings shall be verified
◦Motion to Dismiss – Lack of Jurisdiction over
Subject Matter, Failure to resort to prior
conciliation proceedings
Outright Dismissal By Court
◦From examination of allegations in
complaint and evidenced attached
◦On any of grounds for dismissal of a civil
action apparent therein
◦If no ground found
Answer
◦ 10 days
◦ Defenses not pleaded are waived except for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter
◦ Cross-claims and counterclaims not asserted shall
be barred
◦ No motion to declare in default – prohibited
pleading
Answer
◦ Court motu proprio, or upon motion, shall render judgment
warranted by facts alleged in complaint and limited to what is
prayed for therein
◦ Court in its discretion – reduce amount of damages and
attorney’s fees claimed for being excessive/ unconscionable
◦ Without prejudice to application of Section 3(c) Rule 9 – partial
default
◦ Pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action
against several defending parties, some answer
◦ Court try case against all upon answers filed
◦ Render judgment upon evidene presented
Preliminary Conference
◦ Failure of Plaintiff to appear – dismissal of complaint
◦ If defendant appears – entitled to judgment on
counterclaim
◦ All cross claims dismissed
◦Sole defendant fails to appear – judgment (as if
no answer)
Dismissal – No Conciliation
◦Dismissal without prejudice
◦Revived only after showing that there is
compliance with mandatory conciliation
proceedings
Preliminary Injunction/ Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction
◦ Court may grant preliminary injunction to prevent
defendant from further committing acts of
dispossession
◦ Possessor deprived of possession through forcible
entry or unlawful detainer may within 5 days from
filing of complaint
◦ Motion for issuance of writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore in posession
Ownership
◦Defense
◦Issue of ownership resolved only to
determine issue of possession
◦Judgment is conclusive only on possession
◦Not bar action between same parties
respecting title to land or building
◦Boundary dispute – accion reivindicatoria, not
ejectment
◦The boundary dispute is not about possession,
but encroachment, that is, whether the
property claimed by the defendant formed
part of the plaintiff's property (Javier v. de
Guzman, G.R. No. 186204, 2 September 2015)
Judgment
◦ Allegations true – judgment sum due as arrears of
rent/ reasonable compensation for use and
occupation of premises, attorney’s fees and costs
◦ Allegations not true – defendant to recover his costs
◦ Immediately executory but appealable
To Stay Judgment
1. Supersedeas bond approved by MTC, executed in favor of plaintiff
◦ To pay rents, damages and costs accruing down to time of judgment
appealed from
◦ Transmitted by MTC to RTC clerk
2. During pendency of appeal, deposit with appellate court amount of
rent from time of contract, if any, as determined by MTC
◦ Absence of contract, deposit with RTC reasonable value of use and
occupation of previous month, rate determined by by lower court
◦ On or before 10th day of each succeeding month or period
◦ the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value
or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation
of the leased property.
◦ in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of
rightful possession;
◦ the damages which could be recovered are those which the
plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those
caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property,
and not the damages which he may have suffered but which
have no direct relation to his loss of material possession
◦ Cannot include cost of materials from demolished house
◦ Ajudgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is
immediately executory, but the defendant, to stay its
immediate execution, must:
(1)perfect an appeal;
(2)file a supersedeas bond; and
(3)periodically deposit the rentals becoming due during the
pendency of the appeal
What is the effect of failure to make
such payments?
Upon motion, court shall order execution of
judgment appealed from, without prejudice
to the appeal
Remedy of Plaintiff
◦ Motion within 10 days from perfection of appeal,
application for writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction
◦ To restore plaintiff in possession
◦ If court is satisfied that defendant’s appeal is
frivolous, dilatory, or appeal of plaintiff is prima
facie meritorious
Immediate Execution
◦Judgment of RTC against defendant
◦May be restrained by injunction
◦Without prejudice to further appeal
Contempt
◦ willful disregard or disobedience of a public
authority.
◦ In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or
dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of court is
generic, embracing within its legal signification a
variety of different acts
Contempt
◦ The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all
courts, and need not be specifically granted by
statute.
◦ It lies at the core of the administration of a judicial
system.
◦ respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their
institution; without such guarantee, the institution of
the courts would be resting on a very shaky
foundation
Contempt
◦ Direct Contempt
◦ Summarily punished
◦ In the presence of or so near a court
◦ Not appealable
◦ Certiorari or prohibition – execution suspending
pending petition, with bond conditioned he will
abide by and perform judgment should petition be
resolved against him
◦Forum shopping amounts to direct
contempt of court (Guerrero v. Director, Land
Management Bureau, G.R. No. 183641, 22 April 2015)
Indirect Contempt
◦Motu proprio – after charge in writing filed,
requiring to show cause why he should not
be punished for contempt
◦verified petition
◦If against RTC, with said court or higher rank
◦MTC – in RTC where MTC sitting
◦Subject to appeal
Procedural Requirements – Indirect
Contempt
◦ First, there must be an order requiring the petitioner to show
cause why she should not be cited for contempt.
◦ Second, the petitioner must be given the opportunity to
comment on the charge against her.
◦ Third, there must be a hearing and the court must investigate
the charge and consider petitioner’s answer.
◦ Finally, only if found guilty will petitioner be punished
accordingly.
◦ What is most essential in indirect contempt cases, however, is
that the alleged contemner be granted an opportunity to
meet the charges against him and to be heard in his defenses
Release on Bail
◦If no hearing ordered
◦Upon filing bond, for his appearance at the
hearing
◦When fail to appear, order of arrest, bond
forfeited
Punishment for Indirect Contempt
◦ Fine not exceeding Php30,000.00, or imprisonment
not exceeding 6 months
◦ If against lower court, fine not exceeding
Php5,000.00, or imprisonment not exceeding 1
month
◦ If violation of writ of injunction, TRO or order status
quo order, may also be required to make complete
restitution to property injured by violation in such
amount alleged and proved
◦ Writ of execution for fine
Court to Release
◦When it appears public interest will not be
prejudiced
Contempt Against Quasi-Judicial
Entities
◦RTC where contempt has been committed
shall have jurisdiction over charges as may
be filed therefor
◦NLRC has contempt powers
Robosa v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176085, 8
February 2012
◦ Article 218 of the Labor Code, the NLRC (and the labor
arbiters) may hold any offending party in contempt, directly or
indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties in accordance
with law.
◦ The penalty for direct contempt consists of either imprisonment
or fine, the degree or amount depends on whether the
contempt is against the Commission or the labor arbiter.
◦ The Labor Code requires the labor arbiter or the Commission to
deal with indirect contempt in the manner prescribed under
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
Provisional Remedies
Preliminary Attachment
◦ A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued
by a court where an action is pending. I
◦ allows the levy of a property which shall then be held by the
sheriff.
◦ property will stand as security for the satisfaction of the
judgment that the court may render in favor of the attaching
party.
◦to enable the attaching party to realize
upon the relief sought and expected to be
granted in the main or principal action;
◦Quasi in rem – jurisdiction over person not
required as long as acquire jurisdiction over
res
◦Property placed in custodia legis
◦ At any time before judgment
◦ May be ex-parte
◦ Also provisional remedy in criminal cases – Rule 127
◦ Covers any property of adverse party, not
necessarily subject of the action
◦ Real or personal
◦ when issued ex-parte, the writ cannot be enforced and may
not be validly implemented unless preceded by a service of
summons upon the defendant, or simultaneously
accompanied by service of summons, a copy of the
complaint, the application for attachment, the order of
attachment and the attachment bond (Davao Light and
Power Co. Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 147058, March 10, 2006;
Mangila v. CA, G.R. No. 125027, August 12, 2002)
◦ Bond is required together with affidavit
◦ For the issuance of an ex-parte issuance of the preliminary
attachment to be valid, an affidavit of merit and an
applicant's bond must be filed with the court in which the
action is pending.
◦ bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by
the court is subject to the conditions that the applicant will
pay:
◦ (1) all costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party; and
◦ (2) all damages which such party may sustain by reason of the
attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the
applicant was not entitled thereto
◦ It is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, but also upon consideration of
fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against
him and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and
the grounds therefor that prior or contemporaneously to the
serving of the writ of attachment, service of summons,
together with a copy of the complaint, the application for
attachment, the applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order
must be served upon him.|
◦ It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary
injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to
preserve the status quo until the merits of the case
can be heard. It is usually granted when it is made
to appear that there is a substantial controversy
between the parties and one of them is committing
an act or threatening the immediate commission of
an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy
the status quo of the controversy before a full
hearing can be had on the merits of the case.
◦ In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57 are
silent on the length of time within which an
attachment lien shall continue to subsist after the
rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence dictates
that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or
the sale is had under execution issued on the
judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the
attachment discharged or vacated in the same
manner provided by law.(Lim, Jr. v. Spouses Lazaro,
G.R. No. 185734, [July 3, 2013], 713 PHIL 356-364)
◦ RTC is not permitted to dissolve or discharge a preliminary
attachment or garnishment except on grounds specifically
provided in the rules of Court, namely,
◦ (a) the debtor has posted a counter-bond or has made the
requisite cash deposit;
◦ (b) the attachment was improperly or irregularly issued as
where there is no ground for attachment, or the affidavit
and/or bond filed therefor are defective or insufficient;
◦ (c) the attachment is excessive, but the discharge shall be
limited to the excess;
◦ (d) the property attachment is exempt from preliminary
attachment; or
◦ (e) the judgment is rendered against the attaching
creditor.(Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Lee, G.R. No. 190144,
[August 1, 2012], 692 PHIL 311-325)
◦ bond posted by the attaching creditor answers for
the damages and costs which may be adjudged to
the adverse party arising from and by reason of the
attachment.
◦ Bond posted by the attaching creditor answers for the
damages and costs which may be adjudged to the adverse
party arising from and by reason of the attachment
◦ person whose property is to be attached may prevent the
implementation of the writ by making a cash deposit with the
court which issued the writ of attachment or executing a
counterbond to the adverse party equal to the amount of the
bond fixed by the court in its order granting the writ of
attachment.
◦ the counterbond must be equal to the attachment bond.
Preliminary Injunction
◦ A writ of preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a
party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or
acts. It is merely a provisional remedy, adjunct to the main case subject
to the latter's outcome.
◦ It is not a cause of action in itself. Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy,
it is available during the pendency of the action which may be
resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and
interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate
effects, of a final judgment in the case.
◦ provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of
during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a
mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main
action.
◦ It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction,
whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until
the merits of the case can be heard.
◦ It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is
committing an act or threatening the immediate commission
of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status
quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the
merits of the case.
◦ TRO be issued ex parte "to preserve the status quo
until the hearing of the application for preliminary
injunction[,] which cannot be issued ex parte."
◦ TRO issued even without a prior hearing for a limited
period of 72 hours if the matter is of extreme
urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury.
◦ In this instance, a summary hearing, separate from
the application of the preliminary injunction, is
required only to determine if a 72-hour temporary
restraining order should be extended.
◦ A trial court may also issue ex parte a temporary restraining
order for 20 days "[i]f it shall appear from facts shown by
affidavits or by the verified application that great or
irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the
matter can be heard on notice."
◦ The trial court has 20 days from its issuance to resolve the
application for preliminary injunction. If no action is taken on
the application for preliminary injunction during this period, the
temporary restraining order is deemed to have expired.
◦ Notably, the Rules do not require that a hearing on the
application for preliminary injunction be conducted during this
period.
◦ While Rule 58, Section 4 (d) requires that the trial court conduct a summary hearing in
every application for temporary restraining order regardless of a grant or denial, Rule
58, Section 5 requires a hearing only if an application for preliminary injunction is
granted. Thus, Section 5 states that "[n]o preliminary injunction shall be granted without
hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined." Inversely stated,
an application for preliminary injunction may be denied even without the conduct of a
hearing separate from that of the summary hearing of an application for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order.
◦ For a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to issue, the following
requisites must be present, to wit:
◦ (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must
be protected, and
◦ (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage. Indubitably, this Court has likewise stressed
that the very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of
injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the
probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary
compensation, and the prevention of multiplicity of suits.
Receivership
◦ Appointment of a receiver is not proper when the rights of the
parties, one of whom is in possession of the property, depend
on the determination of their respective claims to the title of
such property unless such property is in danger of being
materially injured or lost, as by the prospective foreclosure of a
mortgage on it or its portions are being occupied by third
persons claiming adverse title.
Receivership
◦ receiver should not be appointed to deprive a party who is in
possession of the property in litigation, just as a writ of
preliminary injunction should not be issued to transfer property
in litigation from the possession of one party to another where
the legal title is in dispute and the party having possession
asserts ownership in himself, except in a very clear case of
evident usurpation.
Receivership
◦ requires that the property or fund subject of the action is in
danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured,
necessitating its protection or preservation. Its object is the
prevention of imminent danger to the property. If the action
does not require such protection or preservation, the remedy is
not receivership
◦ A receiver is not an agent or representative of any party to the
action. He is an officer of the court exercising his functions in
the interest of neither the plaintiff nor defendant, but for the
common benefit of all the parties in interest. He performs his
duties “subject to the control of the Court” (Pacific
Merchandising Corporation v. Consolacion Insurance & Surety
Co, G.R. No. L-30204 October 29, 1976).
Denial/Lifting
◦ If the appointment sought or granted is without

sufficient cause (ROC, RULE 59,Sec. 3);
◦ Adverse party files a counterbond to answer for
damages (ROC, RULE 59, Sec. 3);
◦ Applicant’s bond is insufficient (ROC, RULE 59, Sec.
5); or
◦ Receiver’s bond is insufficient (ROC, RULE 59, Sec. 5).
Replevin
◦any time before the defendant files his
answer, for which reason there can be no
replevin before the appellate courts
◦In Rule 57, it is for security; while, in Rule 60,
it is for recovery of possession.
Replevin
◦ In order to recover possession of the personal
property taken under a writ of replevin, the
defendant must post a redelivery bond (also double
the value of the property as stated in the
applicant’s affidavit) and serve a copy of such
bond on the plaintiff within five (5) days from the
taking by the officer. Both requirements are
mandatory and must be complied with within the 5-
day period.
◦
Replevin
◦ Terceria if claimed by another person
◦ A writ of replevin may be served anywhere in the
Philippines.
◦ The court shall determine who has the right of
possession to and the value of the property and shall
render judgment in the alternative for the delivery to
the party entitled to the same, or for its value in case
delivery cannot be made, and also for damages that
may be proven by the parties, with costs.
Support Pendente Lite
◦Also available in criminal procedure
◦An amount of support provisionally fixed by
the court in favor of the person or persons
entitled thereto during the pendency of an
action for support.
◦At anytime before judgment or final order
◦The adverse party shall have five (5) days
to file a verified comment from the receipt
of the application, unless a different period
is fixed by the court.
◦If the application is granted, the court shall
issue an order where it shall fix the amount of
money to be provisionally paid or such other
forms of support (i.e. medical attendance,
housing, clothing, education, etc.). If
denied, the principal case shall be tried and
decided as early as possible.
Failure to comply with an order granting support pendente lite
may warrant:
◦ The issuance by the Court, motu proprio or upon motion, of an
order of execution against the adverse party
◦ Possible liability for contempt. This is an exception to the rule
the that the defendant may not be cited for contempt if he
fails to comply with judgments for money;
◦ Third person who furnished support may obtain writ of
execution to enforce his right of reimbursement.
Restitution
◦Apply for an order for such reimbursement
by the recipient on motion in the trial court in
the same case, unless such restitution is
already included in the judgment; or
◦Failing therein, file a separate action for
reimbursement against the person legally
obliged to give support.
Family Cases
◦ HDO
◦ Temporary/Permanent Protection Order
◦ Custody
◦ Visitation
◦ Support Pendente Lite
◦ Administration of Common Property
Thank you.

Special Civil Actions and Provisional Remedies - Atty. Senga PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Civil Actions and Provisional Remedies - Atty. Senga PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Civil Actions and Provisional Remedies - Atty. Senga PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some examples of special civil actions?

What are the requirements for an interpleader case?

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

◦ instituted by the filing of a complaint or a petition

◦ court that has jurisdiction to hear and decide on these special

◦ venue of special civil actions are governed by the rules on

◦protect a person not against double liability

◦ lien or charge on the subject

◦Order directing defendants to interplead

Reformation of Instrument – RTC – incapable

Quieting of Title and Consolidation of

◦ PDIC filed declaratory relief on insurability of time deposits

Parties allowed to file pleadings as

◦ Usurpation - to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and

Same thing applies for a defendant who

◦ If the appointment sought or granted is without

You might also like