Sarmiento Vs Capapas

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 4 22/08/2019, 6*41 PM
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sarmiento vs. Capapas
No. L-15509. March 31, 1962.
SEBASTIAN SARMIENTO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees,

vs. HON. ELEUTERIO CAPAPAS, as Commissioner of
Customs, et al., respondents-appellants, GREGORIO
GAMULO, ET AL., intervenors-appellees.
Declaratory relief; Institution of action after breach of contract

or statute; Case at bar.·The institution of an action for declaratory
relief after a breach of contract or statute, is objectionable on
various grounds, among which is that it violates the rule on
multiplicity of suits. In the case at bar, if the action for declaratory
relief were allowed, the judgment therein notwithstanding, another
action would still lie against the importer respondent for violation
of the barter law. So, instead of one case only before the courts in
which all issues would be decided, two cases would be allowed, one
being the present action for declaratory relief and a subsequent one
for the confiscation of the importations as a consequence of the
breach of the barter law.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of

Ilocos Norte. Flores, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ferdinand E. Marcos for petitioners-appellees.
Solicitor General for respondent-appellant Eleuterio
Capapas.
Manuel C. Chan for respondent-appellant Harry S.
Stonehill.
Deogracias E. Lerma for respondent-appellant
Ernesto T. Jimenez.
Conrado Rubio for intervenors-appellees.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb8e69d5381e5624f003600fb002c009e/p/AQB942/?username=Guest Page 1 of 21
LABRADOR, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of

Ilocos Norte, Hon. Delfin B. Flores, presiding, in Civil Case
No. 2790 of that court, declaring the nullity of Barter
Permit No. BT-1380 (SP) issued to the Philippine Tobacco
Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation (hereinafter called PTFRC
PTFRC) and all the importations made thereunder, and
ordering the forfeiture to the Government of said
importations.
817
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 817

The original action in this case was presented on May 28,

1958 and the petition seeks the issuance of an injunction
against the respondent Collector of Customs and
Commissioner of Customs to prohibit them from releasing
the importations made under the Barter Permit No.
BT1380 (SP) in the name of the Philippine Tobacco
FlueCuring and Redrying Corporation, and to order the
respondents Collector of Customs and Commissioner of
Customs to institute seizure and confiscation proceedings
of the importations of tobacco under said Barter Permit No.
BT-1380 (SP).
On June 9, 1958 the petitioners filed a motion to be
permitted to file a new petition for declaratory relief, in
substitution of the petition for prohibition with preliminary
injunction. The principal allegations of the amended
petition are as follows:
That on May 1 to 6, 1958, shipments of 666 hogsheads of
Virginia Type Leaf Tobacco, worth $314,675.62 were
imported by the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and
Redrying Corporation under the Barter Permit No. BT-
1380 (SP) issued on January 21, 1958;
That on May 8, 1958, the Collector of Internal Revenue
issued an authority to release the said imported goods,
which authority was addressed to his co-respondents Hon.
Eleuterio Capapas, as Commissioner of Customs and/or
Hon. Isidro Angangco as incumbent Collector for the Port
of Manila, declaring that said 666 hogsheads of tobacco

were imported under the Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP)
dated January 21, 1958 by the No-Dollar Import Office;
That on May 13, 1958 the administrator of ACCFA
addressed a communication to the Commissioner of
Customs, Manila, stating that he had no objection to the
release of the imported Virginia leaf tobacco or the release
of said 666 hogsheads of tobacco;
That the said shipments of 666 hogsheads of tobacco
form part of several other shipments of Virginia Type Leaf
Tobacco, which are due to arrive at the Port of Manila
under the same Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP) which
tobacco will aggregate in value to the sum of $4,900,000.00;
818

That the respondent, Mr. Juan Echiverri, in his capacity as

President of the Ilocos Norte Federation of FacoMas, failed
miserably to protect the virginia tobacco producers in
failing to register the objections of the different members of
the Ilocos Norte Federation of FacoMas against the said
importations of virginia leaf tobacco;
That the Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP) issued by the
No-Dollar Import Office on January 21, 1958, in favor of
the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying
Corporation, was issued in violation of the provisions of
existing laws, particularly Republic Act Nos. 1194 and
1410;
That the certificates issued by the ACCFA and/or the
Bureau of Internal Revenue were false because we have
surplusage of indigenous production of Virginia type leaf
tobacco in the Philippines, which is sufficient to maintain
the manufacture of tobacco production;
That the importations in question are not actually
covered by any Central Bank license whatsoever;
That as early as January, 1958, petitioners had already
protested with the Secretary of Commerce and Industry
against the issuance of barter permits for such kind of'
tobacco;
That the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of

Customs for Manila are in possession, custody and control
of any and all documents pertaining to the importations
made under the aforesaid Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP);
That the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of
Customs threaten to release the whole or part of said
shipment to the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and
Redrying Corporation, some 60 hogsheads having been
already released in violation of existing laws, more
specifically Republic Act Nos. 1194 and 1410.
It is prayed that the court determine·
1. Whether the barter permit in question is legal or

valid;
2. Whether Sec. 1 . of Repub lic Act No. 11 94 in tion
to Republic Act No. 1410, permits barter of virginia
leaf tobacco;
3. Whether the administrator of ACCFA can issue a
819
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 819

certif icate under the law in view of the actual and

existing fact of surplusage in the production of
Virginia leaf tobacco; and
4. Whether the Virginia leaf tobacco so imported may
be forfeited to the government.
The respondents filed their respective answers. Respondent

Echiverri, on June 25, 1958, denied the charge that he
failed miserably to protect the interests of tobacco growers.
Harry Stonehill likewise denied all the material
allegations of the petition, but admitted that the barter
permit was issued to the PTFRC, after favorable
indorsements were made for its issuance; that several
shipments have already been made to .the company under
said barter permit; and that a part of said shipments has
already been delivered to the consignee. As special
defenses, he claimed that he is not the real party in
interest, the barter license having been issued to the

PTFRC, of which he is only the President, and that the
amended petition is not proper because there was already a
breach of the law upon the issuance of the barter permit.
Respondent Jimenez denied all the material allegations
of the petition, except the issuance by the No-Dollar Import
Office of the barter permit and his certification authorizing
release of the shipment; and as special defense he alleged
that the subject matter is not justifiable for declaratory
relief.
Respondent Quirino also filed his answer, claiming that
the barter permit was issued by him in compliance with a
Presidential Directive dated January 13, 1958.
On July 14, 1958, respondents Capapas, Angangco and
Arañas filed their joint answer, denying, like their
corespondents, all the material allegations of the petition.
As special defenses, they claim that the petition states no
cause of action against them individually, and that the
petition is improper because there is no justiciable
controversy and there is no violation of law.
On November 19, 1958, respondents Capapas, Arañas,
Quirino and Stonehill, filed a joint motion asking the court
to set a preliminary hearing on the special defense that
820

the petition does not state a cause of action for declaratory

relief, but the motion was denied.
After the hearing and on March 12, 1959 the court
rendered the decision, which is now sought to be reviewed,
thus;
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the court finds and so holds that:
(1) the report (indorsement), Exhs. '3-Jimenez', '3-Capapas' and 'hh-
Intervenors', of respondent Jimenez recommending the approval of
respondent Stonehill's request to import 10,000,000 Ibs. of Virginia
leaf tobacco by means of barter is manifestly against the spirit and
letter of Sec.1 of Republic Act No. 1194 construed in relation to Sec.
3 6 of Repub lic 1410 and is, therefore, illegal (2) The Barter Permit
No. BT1380 (Special), Exh. 'JJ-1' and 'JJ-2'; Exhs. '2' and '2-A' and
'4' and '4-A', issued by respondent Carlos Quirino to the Philippine
Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation of which respondent
Stonehill is the President must necessarily be without legal basis.
(3) The home grown Virginia leaf tobacco cannot be bartered with
Virginia leaf tobacco coming from abroad because the entrance of
Virginia leaf tobacco to the Philippines unless there is insufficiency
of home-grown Virginia tobacco for local consumption is prohibited
by Sec. 1 of Republic Act 1194 construed in relation to Sec. 3 6 of
Repub lic Act No. 1 410. T fore, the Virginia leaf tobacco imported
by the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation of
which respondent Stonehill is the President from the USA by virtue
of the said Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (Special) has entered this
country in flagrant violation of the above-mentioned laws and, that
being the case, (4) all of the said Virginia tobacco so far imported as
above stated must be confiscated in favor of the Government in
accordance with Sec. 1-e of Republic Act No. 1194.
"In view of the penal provision of Republic Act 1194, the Clerk of
Court is hereby directed to furnish the honorable Secretary of
Justice with a copy of this decision for his information."
The most important error assigned on the appeal is the

ruling of the trial court that although there has been a
breach of the law, as the breach continued and could
continue up to January 21, 1960, when the barter permit
would expire, the breach is not yet complete.
The above ruling of the court is an express violation of
Sec. 2 of Rule 66, which reads as follows:
"SEC. 2.·A contract or statute may be construed before there has

been a breach thereof."
821
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 821

In the case of De Borja vs. Villadolid, 85 Phil., pp. 36-39 we

held:
"x x x We are only concerned with the question whether or not the
complaint for declaratory relief filed by plaintiff, and which the
Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed for lack of merit, should

be given due course in this Court.
"It appears that the Director of the Bureau of Fisheries
demanded that plaintiff pay the license provided in that Act and in
view of the insistent refusal of plaintiff to comply with such
demand, he finally turned over the case to the Office of the Fiscal of
the City of Manila for appropriate action. However, plaintiff, upon
learning of the step taken by the Director of the Bureau of Fisheries
countered by filing this complaint for declaratory relief, but this
attitude of the plaintiff will only result in multiplicity of actions
which should always be avoided and the Rules of Court obviously
seeks to prevent when, in section 2 of Rule 66, it provides that the
action for declaratory relief must be brought 'before there has been
a breach' of a contract or statute the construction of which is
sought.
"The facts in this case are so clear and unambiguous, that in the
light of said section 2 of Rule 66, there is nothing left for the courts
to adjudicate or construe regarding the legal rights, duties and
status of appellant in the premises. The general purpose of a
declaratory judgment act is to provide for adjudication of the legal
rights, duties, or status of the respective parties." (1 C.J.S., p. 1022;
see also 16 Am. Jur., 284; (De Borja vs. Villadolid, 85 Phil., pp. 36-
39).
Following the above-quoted decision, if an action for

declaratory relief were to be allowed in this case, after a
breach of the statute, the decision of the court in the action
for declaratory relief would prejudge the action for violation
of the barter law.
The institution of an action for declaratory relief after a
breach of contract or statute, is objectionable on various
grounds, among which is that it violates the rule on
multiplicity of suits. If the case at bar were allowed for a
declaratory relief, the judgment therein notwithstanding,
another action would still lie against the importer
respondent for violation of the barter law. So, instead of one
case only before the courts in which all issues would be
decided, two cases will be allowed, one being the present
action for declaratory relief and a subsequent one for the
confiscation of the importations as a consequence of the
breach of the barter law.
822

The impropriety of allowing an action for declaratory relief,

after a breach of the law, can be seen in the very decision of
the court itself, which is now subject of the appeal.
Whereas the case at bar was purported to bring about a
simple declaration of the rights of the parties to the action,
the judgment goes further than said declaration and
decrees that the importation by the respondent corporation
violates the law, and further directs that the legal
importation be confiscated under the provisions of the law
(Section ( 1 (c ), R .A. No. 11 94.) This conf tion directed by
the court lies clearly beyond the scope and nature of an
action for declaratory relief, as the judgment of -
confiscation goes beyond the issues expressly raised, and to
that extent it is null and void.
That the proper remedy under the circumstances was an
action for injunction, and not one for declaratory relief, is
evident from the fact that the original petition was for
injunction; petitioner herein only changed the nature of the
action into one for declaratory relief when, as they explain,
they found out that they did not have funds for the writ of
preliminary injunction.
As a final reason for dismissing the present action, we
have the undeniable fact that as of this date (March, 1962)
the permit had expired two years before (its life extended to
January 21, 1960 only), and all the shipments under the
permit had already been delivered to the consignee and
used in the manufacture of tobacco. The petitioner did not
secure a writ of preliminary injunction, as this remedy is
not proper in an action for declaratory relief; as a result,
aside from the complete violation of the barter law, the
importations have already been completely used up in the
manufacture of tobacco during the pendency of these
proceedings.
Under the circumstances and at present, of what use
will a declaration of the rights of the parties under the
barter law be? In fact as of the date of this decision the
issues have become moot and academic and the court can
do no other than declare the action to be so and of no
practical use or value.
823
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 823

FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment

appealed from is set aside and the action for declaratory
relief dismissed, Without costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo,

Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De
Leon, JJ., concur.
Judgment set aside.
ANNOTATION
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS
Nature of Proceedings
Declaratory relief is a special civil action by any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
ordinance, executive order or regulation to determine any
question of construction or validity arising under the
instrument or statute and for a declaration of his rights or
duties thereunder (Rules of Court, Rule 64, Section 1).
It is a proceeding determinative of the rights, duties, or
status of the parties to the case (De Borja, v. Villadolid, 85
Phil. 36; Sarmiento, et al. vs. Capapas, et al. , 15509, March
31, 1962). Once the rights of the parties to the case have
been decided in a habeas corpus proceeding which has
become final, declaratory relief may no longer be availed of
(Lewin v. Galang, L-15253, Oct. 31, 1960).
A declaratory judgment proceeding is intended to
supplement and not to be a substitute for or supersede
other existing remedies already available to the parties. It
may be used as an alternative or auxiliary to other
proceedings for an executory judgment (Hoskyns v.
National City Bank of New York, 85 Phil. 201).
A counterclaim may be set up in a petition for

declaratory relief. The only requirement is that the subject
matter of the counterclaim must be connected with the
subject matter of the action and must, of course, arise out
of the same transaction (Ledesma v. Morales, 87 Phil. 199).
824

Except in actions for the reformation of an instrument, to

quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or
to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil
Code, the court may refuse to exercise the power to declare
rights and to construe instruments in any case where a
decision would not terminate the uncertainty or
controversy which gave rise to the action, or in any case
where the declaration, or construction is not necessary and
proper at the time under all the circumstances (Rules of
Court, Rule 64, Section 5). It has the sound discretion to
dismiss the action if a declaration is no longer necessary
(Teodoro v. Manuel, 53 O.G. 8088).
Prerequisites to Declaratory Relief

A petition for declaratory relief must be predicated on the
following requisites:
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;

(2) the controversy must be between persons whose
interests are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a
legal interest in the controversy; and,
(4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial
determination (Delumen, et al., v. Republic, 50 O.G.
No. 2,578; Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, L-
3062, Sept. 28, 1951). This means, not that
sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed with, but
that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it
has accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity,
passion and violence of the full-blown battle which
looms ahead between the parties (Sen, et al. v.

Republic, L-6868, April 30, 1955).
Justiciable Controversy
There is a justiciable controversy where the court is
satisfied that an actual controversy, or the ripening seeds of
one, exists between the parties, all of whom are sui juris
and before the court, and that the declaration sought will
be a practical help in ending the controversy. A doubt
becomes a justiciable controversy when it is translated into
a claim of right which is actually contested. (Tolentino v.
The Board of Accountancy, L-3062, Sept. 28, 1961). In other
words, a justiciable controversy is one involving an active
antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one
825
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 825

side and denial thereof on the other concerning a real if not

a mere theoretical question or issue (Delumen v. Republic,
50 O.G. 578).
There is no justiciable controversy where the issues
sought to be determined have become moot and academic
and the decision to be rendered will be of no practical use
or value as when, for instance, the permit to barter had
already expired and the shipments in controversy had been
delivered and used in the manufacture of tobacco so that
the declaration of the rights of the parties under the barter
law is useless (Sarmiento. et al. v. Capapas, et al., L-15509,
March 31, 1962).
The same is true when the issue to be tried is an
abstract or theoretical question or when the claim in
question is uncretain or hypothetical (Delumen v. Republic,
50 O.G. No. 2, 578).
Another example of a moot question is the question of
whether or not the Government Service Insurance System
is a government agency performing governmental function
which has already been determined in another case by the
Supreme Court. The case is moot because it seeks to get a

judgment on a pretended controversy, when in reality there
is none, which is similar to a decision in advance about a
right before it has actually been asserted and contested, or
the judgment when rendered, for any reason, cannot have
any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy
(GSIS Employees Association v. Alvendia, et al., L-15614,
May 30, 1960).
Where the facts are so clear and unambiguous that in
the light of Section 1 of Rule 64, there is nothi ng left for
the courts to adjudicate or construe regarding the legal
rights, duties or status of the parties in the premises, the
action for declaratory relief should be dismissed. (De Borja
v. Villadolid, 85 Phil. 36). The action should also be
dismissed if the declaration sought will not conclude the
controversy as when the issue for adjudication in the
ejection case is the termination of the lease and the
question posed in the action for declaratory relief refers
merely to the amount of the lawful rent (Ong Kim Pan v.
Geronimo, 85 Phil. 261).
826

Existence of Other Remedy

Ordinarily, an action for declaratory judgment will not be
entertained where another equally adequate and
appropriate remedy is already available for the issues or
right sought to be determined and declared, as where
another equally serviceable statutory remedy has been
specially provided in cases of similar import, and
particularly where such statutory remedy is exclusive
(Hoskyns v. National City Bank of New York, 85 Phil. 201).
Where administrative remedies are available, an action
for declaratory relief will be denied (Azajar v. Ardales, 51
O.G. 5640). However, it is within the discretion of the court
to permit such an action or proceeding to be maintained
even if another remedy is available to the plaintiff
(Hoskyns v. National City Bank of New York, supra).
Before Breach of Statute or Contract

An action for declaratory relief can not lie after a breach of
the contract or statute or right and that it is sufficient to
bar such action that there had been a breach which would
constitute actionable violation because then the plaintiff
already had adequate relief available to him through the
means of other existing o f or ms of act io n or ceeding (De
Borja v. Villadolid, supra; Samson v. Andal, L-3439, July
31, 1951; Ollada v. Central Bank, L-11357, May 31, 1962;
King v. Hernaez, L-14859, March 31, 1962). It is not
necessary that there shall be an actual pending case
arising from the breach; it is enough if there is a breach. of
the law (Borja v. Villadolid, supra). After the breach, the
regular remedy obtains (Samson v. Andal supra),
otherwise, if declaratory relief is still allowed, the rule on
multiplicity of suits will be violated which should always be
avoided (De Borja v. Villadolid , supra; Sarmiento v.
Capapas, et al. , L-15509, March 31, 1962).
There is multiplicity of suit where despite a declaratory
relief on the rights of the parties under the barter law,
another action would still lie against the importer
respondent for violation of the barter law. The proper
action that should be taken in such a case is an action for
injunction so that the judgment can go as far as confiscate
the importations made in violation of the barter law (Rep.
827
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 827

Act No. 1194; Sarmiento, et al. v. Capapas, et al., supra).

In tax statutes, the terms of the statute are deemed
violated if at the time the action for declaratory relief is
brought, payment of the license taxes imposed by the
statute is already due and the prayer of the petition shows
that the petitioner had not paid them (Santos v. Aquino, 49
O.G. 5344).
In an action for a declaration of the rights of the parties
under Rep. Act 1383, it was held that there was no breach
of the statute as yet because there was no actual physical
turn-over of the Baguio Waterworks System by the City of
Baguio to National Waterworks Sewerage Authority (City
of Baguio v. National Waterworks Sewerage Authority, 57
O.G. 1579).
Where the lease contract had already expired and
already breached, an action for declaratory relief is no
longer proper (Teodoro v. Mirasol, 53 O.G. 8088).
Subject Matter of Declaratory Relief

In general, a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or a statute, executive order or regulation, or
ordinance is a proper subject of declaratory relief. An action
for declaratory relief may also be brought for the
reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property
or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership
under Article 1607 of the Civil Code (Rules of Court, Rule
64, Section 1).
Contracts.·The rights of the parties to a lease contract
may be raised in an action for declaratory relief before
there has been a breach (Teodoro v. Mirasol, supra) because
there would be no more need of a declaration of the rights
of the parties once there has been a breach unless the
judgment would prohibit the enforcement of the lease
which can not be done in an action for declaratory relief (O'
Racca Bldg. Tenants Asso., Inc. v. Kintanar, L16826, Nov.
30, 1961, 3 SCRA 62).
Statute·An action for declaratory relief may be files to
obtain a declaration from the court that petitioner has a
right to repurchase a property sold at public auction
828

within five (5) years under Section 119 of Commonwealth

Act No. 141 (Public Land Act; Umangan v. Butacan, L-
16036, Feb. 28, 1963) in the same manner that a share
tenant can secure a declaration of his right to change the
nature of his tenancy relationship with the landowner from

share tenancy to leasehold tenancy pursuant to Section 14
of Republic Act No. 1199, known as the Agricultural
Tenancy Act unless there has already been a breach of the
statute in which case the proper remedy would then be not
to file a declaratory relief but to bring an action before the
Court of Agrarian Relations (Magtibay v. Alikpala, L-17590
and L-17627, Nov. 29, 1962).
The Anti-Dummy Law prohibits the employment of
aliens by Filipino retailers except for technical positions
with previous approval of the President of the Republic.
But where one acquires ownership of a business
establishment which already employed aliens and because
of doubt that one entertains as regards the scope of the
prohibition of the law, an action for declaratory relief may
be filed in court (King v. Hernaez, L-14859, March 31,
1962).
An action for declaratory relief may be filed by owners of
cars registered in the Motor Vehicles Office in order to test
the validity of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No.
3992; Phil. Motor Association v. City Assessor of Manila, L-
4442, May 22, 1953). The unconstitutionality of Section 16-
A of Act No. 3105 as amended by Commonwealth Act No.
342 authorizing accountants to practice their professions
under a trade name is also a proper subject matter of an
action for declaratory relief by the proper parties (Tolentino
v. Board of Accountancy, supra).
Republic Act No. 1383 was the subject matter of an
action for declaratory relief between the City of Baguio and
the National Waterworks Sewerage Authority before the
breach thereof (City of Baguio v. National Waterworks
Sewerage Authority, 57 O.G. 1579) but the petition for
declaratory relief filed by the employees of the GSIS to seek
a judicial declaration on their right to strike as government
employees was denied because the unions had already gone
on strike at the time (Government Service Insurance
System Employees Association v. Alvendia, L-15614, May
30, 1960).
829
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 829
When an action is brought to secure declaration of the

rights and duties under a tax statute, declaratory relief is
not proper because it is explicitly prohibited by Act No.
3736, as amended by Republic Act No. 55, as held in
National Dental Supply Co. v. Meer, L-4183, Oct. 26, 1951
(Rodriguez v. Blaquera, L-13941, Sept. 30, 1960). This
means that a taxpayer should first pay the tax and sue for
its recovery within the period limited by law. An action for
declaratory relief may still be filed to test the validity of a
tax statute where the tax is not yet due (National Dental
Supply Co. v. Meer, supra). In another case, an action for
declaration was given due course to settle the question of
whether or not shares of stocks of a local company, Benguet
Consolidated Mining Co., are still subject to Philippine
inheritance tax after the same were already subjected to
Federal and State taxes in the United States (Wells Fargo
Bank a l Uni on Tr ust Co . v. Coll of Internal Revenue, 70
Phil. 325).
Executive Order·The constitutionality of an executive
order can be raised as a proper subject matter of a
declaratory relief proceeding (Araneta v. Gatmaitan, L-
8895, April 30, 1957).
Ordinance·Where the terms of an ordinance are not
ambiguous or of doubtful meaning which require a
construction thereof by the court or where it has not been
violated, declaratory relief is proper (Santos v. Aquino,
supra).
A city ordinance of Manila was declared null and void in
a declaratory relief proceeding on the ground that it
infringed on the uniformity of taxation (Philippine Motor
Association v. City Assessor of Manila, L-4442, May 22,
1953).
On the effect of payment to the municipality pursuant to
a tax ordinance during the pendency of a case of
declaratory relief, it was held that the action was still
proper despite the payment made on a particular sale
because an uncertainty on the applicability of the
ordinance to future sales would still remain and despite the
fact that the same issue could be threshed out in an
ordinary suit for the recovery of taxes paid (Shell Co. of the
Philippines, Ltd. v. Municipality of Sipocot, L-12680,

March 20, 1959).
830

Trusts·The propriety of trusts as subject matter of

declaratory relief was upheld in a case where the trust
created in the will in favor of the Roman Catholic Church
provided that the indispensable party, namely, the Roman
Catholic Church, is brought into the case (Hoskyns v.
National City Bank of New York, supra),
But an action for declaratory relief seeking to determine
the hereditary rights or future interests of a petitioner in
the property of his alleged father can not be maintained for
the simple reason that the alleged right of inheritance
which the petitioner desires to assert has not yet accrued
as his alleged father has not yet died. (Edades v. Edades, et
al. 52 O.G. 5149).
Other Particular Application

1. Declaration of Citizenship·There is no proceeding, by
declaratory relief or otherwise, available o f or the exp
purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship or
for the cancellation of the alien certificate of registration
for the cancellation can not be based on any ground other
than that the plaintiff is a Filipino citizen (Tan v. Republic,
L-16101, Oct. 31, 1961). But one can in a deportation case
(U.S. v. Ong Tian Se, 29 Phil. 352) or naturalization case
(Santos Co v. Government, 52 Phil 562; Serra v. Republic,
L-4223, May 23, 1952) present evidence that one who is to
be deported or one applying for naturalization is in fact a
Filipino (Santiago v. Commissioner, L-14653, Jan. 31, 1963.
See also Yu Chin v. Republic, L-15775, April 29, 1961; Suy
Chan v. Republic, L-14159, April 18, 1960).
In Navarro v. Commissioner, L-15100, Dec. 29, 1960, the
petitioner instituted an action for declaratory relief praying
that his alien papers be cancelled and a certificate of
identity as Filipino citizen be issued to him but the
Supreme Court said that this could not be done. In the

same manner, the mere fact that the plaintiff i s sal es
applicat for a parcel of land of the public domain was
objected to by the Director of Lands is no ground to
determine the plaintiffs citizenship because if he really
thinks that he is a Filipino citizen, he should push through
the administrative proceedings in the Bureau of Lands and
submit the
831
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 831

evidence to prove her citizenship. She could go to courts

later if she is prevented from the exercise of her rights as a
citizen. (Azajar v. Ardales, et al., L-7913, Oct. 31, 1955).
"Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the

judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Courts of
justice exist for demandable and enforceable rights, an act or
omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned
by law, for said breach of right. As an incident only of the
adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the court
may pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative to, their status.
Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power. Thus,
for instance, no action or proceeding may be instituted for a
declaration to the effect that plaintiff or petitioner is married, or
single, or a legitimate child, although a finding thereon may be
made as a necessary premise to justify a given relief available only
to one enjoying said status. At times, the law permits the
acquisition of a given status, such as naturalization, by judicial
decree. But, there is no similar legislation authorizing the
institution of a judicial proceedings to declare that a given person is
part of our citizenry." (Tan v. Republic, L-14159, April 18, 1960.
Reiterated in Yu Chin v. Republic, L-15775, April 29, 1961; Tan v.
Republic, L-16108, Oct. 31, 1961, and Santiago v. Commissioner,
supra).
2. Presumption of Death·A declaratory relief for a

declaration that a person is presumed dead can not be done
because if it were so, what can not be obtained directly
under the provisions of the Divorce Law in the Civil Code

could indirectly be secured under the provisions of the
Rules of Court. Obviously, the latter must not be made t o
prevail over the former. If that were the case, a petition
could be filed in collusion with the other spouse so as to
obtain a decree of divorce simply by means of a judicial
decree stating that a person unheard from in seven years is
presumptively dead (In re Nicolai Szatraw, 81 Phil. 461).
Moreover, such judicial declaration can not become final
because such presumption is still disputable and therefore
useless, unnecessary, superfluous and of no benefit to the
plaintiff, (In re Nicolai Szatraw, supra, citing Hagano v.
Wislizenus, 42 Phil. 880).
3. Status of Illegitimate Child·There is no express
provision in the new Civil Code which prescribes the step
that may be taken to establish the status of an illegitimate
child as in the case of a natural child who can bring an
832

action for recognition (Article 285, Civil Code). But an

illegitimate child other than natural is now given
successional rights and there is need to establish his status
before such rights can be asserted and enforced.
Furthermore, the right of an illegitimate child to -establish
his status is impliedly recognized by Article 289 of the Civil
Code which permits the investigation of the paternity or
maternity of an illegitimate child in the same manner as in
the case of a natural child. For these reasons, the rules of
procedure should be liberally construed so as to promote
the object of justice and avoid an expensive litigation
(Rules of Court, Rule 1, Section 1). A declaratory relief may
therefore be brought to establish the status of an
illegitimate child (Edades v. Edades, supra).
4. Amendment of Certificate of Title·Declaratory relief
is not the proper action to secure the amendment of a
certificate of title by having the plaintiffs name inscribed
thereon as owners of the improvements existing on the
homestead occupied by him but registered in another's
name. The proper remedy is to bring an action under the

Land Registration Act (Acuña v. Furukawa Plantation
Company, 49 O.G. 5382).
5. Court Decision·Evidently, a court decision can not be
interpreted as included within the purview of the words
"other written instrument for the simple reason that 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 the expedient
prescribed by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore,
once a case is def initely litigated, it should not be reopened
upon the principle of res judicata which stamps the mark of
finality on the case (Tanda v. Aldaya, 52 O.G. 5175). Thus,
it has been held that a petition for declaratory relief is not
proper to test a ruling of the court in a bigamy case (Lerum
v. Cruz, 87 Phil. 652).
6. Boundary Dispute·In the case of Municipality of
Hinabañgan v. Municipality of Wright, L-12603, March 25,
1960 the municipality of Wright issued fishing licenses over
the Bulacan River alleged to be within the territorial
jurisdiction of the municipality of Hinabañgan. The Court
held that the proper remedy of the latter municipality is
833
VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 833

Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. vs. pauli
not to file a declaratory relief proceeding but to file an

action to eject the licensees.
7. Admissibilit y of Evidence·Admissibil it y of evi is
not a proper subject matter for declaratory relief. It
concerns merely the sufficiency or probative value of an
evidence which the court can pass upon in the proper
action on the case. Furthermore, any other matter not
mentioned in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is deemed
excluded as a subject matter for declaratory relief under
the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Thus, a
petition for declaratory relief to test the sufficiency of a
judge's testimony in a criminal case to a decree of divorce
granted by him during the Japanese occupation was denied
(Lerum, et al. v. Cruz, et al., 87 Phil. 652).
8. Correction of Civil Registry·The Civil Registry is not

a proper subject of an action for declaratory relief because
the registration papers filed in the office of the municipal
treasurer are not in the form of contracts in which another
party is involved, but a unilateral act of the persons
registered therein and not creating any right or obligation
on the part of any other party or on that of the state, and
therefore, no one has an interest therein except those
registered therein. A petition for declaratory relief to
correct an alleged erroneous registration in the civil
registry must therefore be denied. (Abiles v. Republic, L-
5204, March 27, 1953).·ATTY. AMBROSIO R. BLANCO.
_____________
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Sarmiento Vs Capapas

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

Sarmiento Vs Capapas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 4 22/08/2019, 6*41 PM

816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. L-15509. March 31, 1962.

SEBASTIAN SARMIENTO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees,

Declaratory relief; Institution of action after breach of contract

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 817

The original action in this case was presented on May 28,

of Manila, declaring that said 666 hogsheads of tobacco

818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

That the respondent, Mr. Juan Echiverri, in his capacity as

That the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of

1. Whether the barter permit in question is legal or

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 819

certif icate under the law in view of the actual and

The respondents filed their respective answers. Respondent

interest, the barter license having been issued to the

820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the petition does not state a cause of action for declaratory

The most important error assigned on the appeal is the

"SEC. 2.·A contract or statute may be construed before there has

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 821

In the case of De Borja vs. Villadolid, 85 Phil., pp. 36-39 we

Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed for lack of merit, should

Following the above-quoted decision, if an action for

822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The impropriety of allowing an action for declaratory relief,

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 823

FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo,

Judgment set aside.

A counterclaim may be set up in a petition for

824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Except in actions for the reformation of an instrument, to

Prerequisites to Declaratory Relief

(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;

looms ahead between the parties (Sen, et al. v.

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 825

side and denial thereof on the other concerning a real if not

Supreme Court. The case is moot because it seeks to get a

826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Existence of Other Remedy

(Hoskyns v. National City Bank of New York, supra).

Before Breach of Statute or Contract

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 827

Act No. 1194; Sarmiento, et al. v. Capapas, et al., supra).

Subject Matter of Declaratory Relief

828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

within five (5) years under Section 119 of Commonwealth

nature of his tenancy relationship with the landowner from

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 829

Sarmiento vs. Capapas

When an action is brought to secure declaration of the

Philippines, Ltd. v. Municipality of Sipocot, L-12680,

830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Trusts·The propriety of trusts as subject matter of

Other Particular Application

Supreme Court said that this could not be done. In the

VOL. 4, MARCH 31, 1962 831

evidence to prove her citizenship. She could go to courts

"Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the

2. Presumption of Death·A declaratory relief for a