RULE 63-DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES MERAKI LEX 1

Case #1 Thus, the Court declared that a petition for declaratory relief cannot properly have a court decision as its subject matter. A court decision
G.R. No. 137794 cannot be interpreted as included within the purview of the words “other written instrument” for the simple reason that the provisions of
August 11, 2010 the Rules of Court already provide for the ways by which an ambiguous or doubtful decision may be corrected or clarified without need
of resorting to a petition for declaratory relief.
ERLINDA REYES and ROSEMARIE
MATIENZO, Petitioners, Citing Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court held that the same section of the provision can be dissected into two parts.
vs.
HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ, Presiding,
Branch 49, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan The first paragraph concerns declaratory relief, which has been defined as a special civil action by any person interested under a
City, et al, Respondents. deed, will, contract or other written instrument or whose rights are affected by a statute, ordinance, executive order or regulation to
G.R. No. 149664 determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute and for a
SPS. ALBERTO EMBORES and LOURDES declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.
EMBORES, et al, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. RAYMUNDO G. VALLEGA, Presiding The second paragraph pertains to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument; (2) an action to quiet title; and (3) an action to
Judge, Branch 52, Metropolitan Trial Court, consolidate ownership in a sale with a right to repurchase.
Caloocan City; et al, Respondents. (CITED IN THE BOOK)

The first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 63 enumerates the subject matter to be inquired upon in a declaratory relief namely, deed, will, contract or
other written instrument, a statute, executive order or regulation, or any government regulation. This Court, in Lerum v. Cruz,44 declared that the
subject matters to be tested in a petition for declaratory relief are exclusive, viz:

Under this rule, only a person who is interested "under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute
or ordinance, may bring an action to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a declaration
of his rights or duties thereunder." This means that the subject matter must refer to a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or to a statute
or ordinance, to warrant declaratory relief. Any other matter not mentioned therein is deemed excluded. This is under the principle of expressio unius
est exclussio alterius. (Emphasis supplied.)
Case # 2 Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or
G.R. No. 175064 resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute;
600 SCRA 569 and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the question of
September 18, 2009 construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute. (mentioned in RIANO)

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented

by Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, The requisites of an action for declaratory relief are:
Jr.,Petitioner, (1) there must be a justiciable controversy between persons whose interests are adverse;
vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; and (2) the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and
CITY OF NAGA, represented by Mayor Jesse (3) the issue is ripe for judicial determination
M. Robredo, Respondents.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Corollary is the general rule that such an action must be justified, as no other adequate relief or remedy is available under the
Case # 3 circumstances. (Mentioned in RIANO)
G.R. No. 150806
January 28, 2008 As a rule, the petition for declaratory relief should be dismissed in view of the pendency of a separate action for unlawful detainer. In this case,
however, the trial court had not yet resolved the rescission/ejectment case during the pendency of the declaratory relief petition. In fact, the trial
EUFEMIA ALMEDA and ROMEL ALMEDA, court, where the rescission case was on appeal, initiated the suspension of the proceedings pending the resolution of the action for declaratory
petitioners, relief.
vs. BATHALA MARKETING INDUSTRIES, INC.,
respondent. Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an action for declaratory relief, as follows:
NACHURA 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;

1
RULE 63-DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES MERAKI LEX 2

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. (Mentioned in RIANO)

Case #4 It is not a jurisdictional defect. The non-inclusion of the squatters mentioned in the Ordinance in question as party defendants in this case
G.R. No. L-27247 cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the CFI of Baguio.
April 20, 1983
The rights of persons not made parties to the action do not stand to be prejudiced by the declaration. Since their rights are not to be prejudiced by
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR their non-inclusion, the failure to implead such persons does not, therefore, affect the jurisdiction of the court over the petition.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE
VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 386 OF THE Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court which merely states that "All persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would
CITY OF BAGUIO, BAGUIO CITIZENS ACTION be affected by the declaration; and no declaration shall, except or otherwise provided in these rules, prejudice the rights of persons not parties to
INC., and JUNIOR CHAMBER OF BAGUIO the a c t i o n. "
CITY, INC., petitioners-appellants,
vs. THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MAYOR OF If at all, the case may be dismissed not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but for the reason stated in Section 5 of the same Rule stating that "the
THE CITY OF BAGUIO, respondents-appellees. Court may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case where a decision would not terminate the
DE CASTRO, J: uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action, or any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper at the time
under all circumstances.

"The reason for the law requiring the joinder of all necessary parties is that failure to do so would deprive the declaration of the
final and pacifying function the action for declaratory relief is calculated to subserve, as they would not be bound by the declaration
and may raise the identical issue.

In the case at bar, although it is true that any declaration by the court would affect the squatters, the latter are not necessary parties
because
**Doctrine:
All persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest whi ch would be affected by the declaration; and no declaration shall
prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the action. Therefore, the non- joinder of persons who have claim or interest which would be
affected by the declaration is not a jurisdictional defect.

Case #5
RULING: No.
G.R. No. L-21036
Because of the absence of allegations seeking material or affirmative reliefs in a petition for declaratory relief, it has been held that when
30 June 1977
the main case is for declaratory relief, a third-party complaint is inconceivable. The relief sought in this kind of pleading is contribution,
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs JUDGE
indemnity, subrogation or other relief from the third-party defendant in respect of the claim of the plaintiff against him. Accordingly, this
GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL
relief cannot be granted because, in a declaratory relief, the court is merely interpreting the terms of the contract.

Case #6
GR No. L-29673
November 12, 1987 RULING: There is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a counterclaim based on
the same transaction, deed or contract subject of the complaint. A special civil action is after all not essentially different from all ordinary civil
THE VISAYAN PACKING CORPORATION vs 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
THE REPARATIONS COMMISSION & CA necessary some special regulation. But the Identity between their fundamental nature is such that the same rules governing ordinary civil suits may
and do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special
civil actions.

Case #7
G.R. No. 137794 While a petition for declaratory relief may be treated as one for prohibition if it has far reaching implications and raises questions that need to be
August 11, 2010 resolved, there is no allegation of facts by petitioner tending to show that she is entitled to such a writ. The judicial policy must thus remain that this
Court will not entertain direct resort to it, except when the redress sought cannot be obtained in the proper courts or when exceptional and compelling
ERLINDA REYES and ROSEMARIE MATIENZO circumstances warrant availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of this Court's primary jurisdiction.
vs HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ
GALICTO CASE

2
RULE 63-DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES MERAKI LEX 3

Case #8 Yes. “Petition for declaratory relief treated as petition for mandamus” At the outset, petitioner is faced with a procedural barrier. Among the remedies
G.R. No. 176579 petitioner seeks, only the petition for prohibition is within the original jurisdiction of this court, which however is not exclusive but is concurrent with
June 28, 2011 the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The actions for declaratory relief, injunction, and annulment of sale are not embraced within the
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. On this ground alone, the petition could have been dismissed outright.
WILSON P. GAMBOA, Petitioner, - versus -
While direct resort to this Court may be justified in a petition for prohibition, the Court shall nevertheless refrain from discussing the grounds in
FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES,
support of the petition for prohibition since on 28 February 2007, the questioned sale was consummated when MPAH paid IPC P25,217,556,000
V. SANIDAD and ARNO V. SANIDAD,
and the government delivered the certificates for the 111,415 PTIC shares.
Petitioners-in-Intervention.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
However, since the threshold and purely legal issue on the definition of the term capital in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution has far-reaching
implications to the national economy, the Court treats the petition for declaratory relief as one for mandamus.

In Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, the Court treated the petition for declaratory relief as one for mandamus considering the grave
injustice that would result in the interpretation of a banking law.

In Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor, the Court similarly brushed aside the procedural infirmity of the petition for declaratory relief
and treated the same as one for mandamus.

In short, it is well-settled that this Court may treat a petition for declaratory relief as one for mandamus if the issue involved has far-reaching
implications (XPN). As this Court held in Salvacion:

The Court has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief. However, exceptions to this rule have been recognized.
Thus, where the petition has far-reaching implications and raises questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for mandamus. (Riano)

Case #9 No executory process as in ordinary civil actions

G.R. No. 167391 It was ruled that the judgment in a petition for declaratory relief can be carried into effect without requiring the parties to pay damages or
June 8, 2011 perform any act as when the petitioner’s complaint is captioned as Quieting of Title and Damages, but all that the petitioner prayed for is
for the court to uphold the validity of its titles as against that of respondent
PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - MAXIMO Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. Whenever there is
BONIFACIO, CEFERINO R. BONIFACIO, a cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is
APOLONIO B. TAN, BENITA B. CAINA, apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action
CRISPINA B. PASCUAL, ROSALIA B. DE may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. In such action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the
GRACIA, TERESITA S. DORONIA, CHRISTINA complainant and the other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and make the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable,
GOCO AND ARSENIO C. BONIFACIO, in their respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the
capacity as the surviving heirs of the late property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce any desired improvements, as well as use, and even abuse the property.
ELEUTERIA RIVERA VDA. DE BONIFACIO,
Respondents. An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of the rights arising thereunder.
Since the purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute,
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. deed, or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach
thereof, it may be entertained before the breach or violation of the statute, deed or contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a
practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the state where another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for a
form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs.

Case #10
In bringing their petitions before the trial court, both respondents pleaded the existence of the essential requisites for their respective petitions for
G.R. No. 170656
declaratory relief, and refuted petitioners’ contention that a justiciable controversy was lacking.
August 15, 2007
The following are the essential requisites for a declaratory relief petition:
THE METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT
(a) there must be a justiciable controversy;
AUTHORITY and BAYANI FERNANDO as
Chairman of the Metropolitan Manila (b) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
Development Authority, petitioners,
(c) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and
vs.
VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., (d) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination.
respondent.

3
RULE 63-DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES MERAKI LEX 4
x --------------------------------------------- x
G.R. No. 170657 August 15, 2007 The requirement of the presence of a justiciable controversy is satisfied when an actual controversy or the ripening seeds thereof exist between
HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Executive the parties, all of whom are sui juris and before the court, and the declaration sought will help in ending the controversy.26
Secretary, the METROPOLITAN MANILA
A question becomes justiciable when it is translated into a claim of right which is actually contested.
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and BAYANI
FERNANDO as Chairman of the Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority, petitioners,
vs.
MENCORP TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, INC.,
respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

CASE NO. 11 The requisites for entitlement to declaratory relief were not complied.
G.R. No. 219340
November 07, 2018
An action for declaratory relief is governed by Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.16 It is predicated on the attendance of several
requisites, specifically: (1) the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
or regulation, or ordinance; (2) the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction; (3) there must
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. STANDARD
have been no breach of the documents in question; (4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between
INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondent.
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.