IV.

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

A. Nature, Purpose and Jurisdiction over provisional remedies

B. Preliminary Attachment
 It is a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into
legal custody either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter,
as a security for the satisfaction of any judgement that may be recovered by the
plaintiff or any proper party (Northern Islands Company, Inc. v. Spouses Garcia,
G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015)
C. Preliminary Injunction
 It is effective during the pendency of the action involved. Its purpose is to
preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the action to protect the rights of
the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit (Dungog v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 139767, August 5, 2003).
D. Replevin
 It is both a form of principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It may refer either
to the action itself, i.e. to regain the possession of personal chattels being
wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the provisional remedy that
would allow the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the action and
hold it pendente lite. The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally
determines nothing more than the right of possession (PCI Leasing and Finance,
Inc. v. Spouses Dai, G.R. No. 148980, September 21, 2007).

V. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

A. Jurisdiction

 MANALANG VS. BACANI G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015 Allegations and
the relief sought in the complaint determines the nature of the complaint
and jurisdiction of the court FACTS: Petitioners were co-owners for lot in
question and caused a relocation and verification survey which showed that
respondents had encroached on a portion of said lot. When the respondents
refused to vacate the encroached portion and to surrender peaceful
possession thereof despite demands, the petitioners commenced this action
for unlawful detainer arguing illegal use and occupation. MTC dismissed on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction. RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and
remanded case on appeal. MTC ultimately dismissed case. ISSUE: Was an
action for unlawful detainer proper? HELD: NO. The MTC dismissed the
action because it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was
correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the nature of the
action and the court that has jurisdiction over the action. All that the
petitioners alleged was the respondents’ “illegal use and occupation” of the
property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.
 EULALIA RUSSELL, ET. AL. VS. HONORABLE AUGUSTINE VESIL, ET. AL.
G.R.No. 119347; March 17, 1999 Jurisdiction over an action is determined by the
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. FACTS: A
parcel of land was previously owned by spouses Casimero and CesariaTauthi.
Upon their death, the land was inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners
 and respondents. Since then, the land remained undivided until petitioners
discovered a public document denominated “DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND
DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT.” By virtue
of the deed, respondents divided the property among themselves to the
exclusion of petitioners. Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents in
the RTC praying that the documents be declared null and void; and, an order be
issued to partition the land among all the heirs. Respondents filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the total assessed value of the
subject land is 5,000Php, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Petitioners filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that RTC has
jurisdiction over the case because the action is one which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. ISSUE:
W/N the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence, within
the jurisdiction of the RTC. HELD: YES. The main purpose of petitioners in filing
the complaint is to declare null and void the document in which respondents
declared themselves as the only heirs of the late spouses Casimero and Cesaria
Tautho and divided the property among themselves to the exclusion of the
petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property. While the
complaint also prays for the partition of the property this is just incidental to the
main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-described.
It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by
law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the
relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
claims stated therein.
 SAN PEDRO v. ASDALA 593 SCRA 397 JULY 22,2007 Jurisdiction over cases
the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real property or any
interest therein" under section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the first and
second level courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the
benchmark. FACTS: Sometime in July 2001, private respondents Allan and
Eleonor Dionisio (heirs of spouses Apolonio and Valeriana Dionisio) filed with the
MeTC of Quezon City a Complaint against herein petitioners (Ana de guia San
Pedro and Alejo Dopeo) and Wood Crest Residents Association, Inc., for Accion
Reivindicatoria, Quieting of Title and Damages, with Prayer for Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction. PRs alleged that subject property located in Batasan Hills,
Quezon City, with an assessed value of P32,100.00, was titled in the name of
SPS Dionisio but petitioners, with malice and evident bad faith, claimed that they
were the owners of a parcel of land that encompasses and covers subject
property but it was alleged in the complaint that petitioners' TCT over the
property was spurious. Since PRS had allegedly been prevented from entering,
possessing and using subject property they prayed that they be declared the sole
and absolute owners of the subject property. to recover possession of the same
and for payment of actual and moral damages, and attorney's fees. Petitioners
filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the action, as the subject of litigation was incapable of
pecuniary estimation. MeTC: denied the motion to dismiss under B.P129, as
amended, the MeTC had exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title
to or possession of real property of small value. Petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration was denied. RTC (petition for certiorari): dismissed the petition
and sustained the MeTC ruling pursuant Section 33(3) of R.A. No. 7691,
amending B.P. Blg. 129, the MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint as it
involves recovery of ownership and possession of real property located in QC,
with an assessed value not exceeding P50,000.00. MR was denied. CA (petition
 for certiorari): dismissed the petition outright, holding that petitioners' should have
availed themselves of the remedy of appeal. Petitioners' MR was denied. Hence,
the petition for certiorari under rule 65. ISSUE: W/N the MeTC has jurisdiction
over the case? RULING: YES. The Court reiterates the ruling in Heirs of
Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, to wit: In a number of cases, we
have held that actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet
title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein. x x x x
Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a
case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation,
under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, or one involving title to property under Section
19(2). The distinction between the two classes became crucial with the
amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, which expanded the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include "all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs." Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases the subject
matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real property or any interest
therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the first and second
level courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the
benchmark. This amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded dockets
of the RTCs which would result in the speedier administration of justice." Clearly,
the RTC and the CA ruled correctly that the MeTC had jurisdiction over private
respondents' complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria involving a lot in QC with an
assessed value not exceeding P50,000.

 SPS. SABITSANA V. MUERTEGUI G.R. # 181359. August 5, 2013 RTC has

jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of title. FACTS: Garcia executed an
unnotarized deed of Sale in favor of respondent Juanito Muertegui (Juanito) over
a 7,500 sq.m parcel of unregistered land located in Biliran, Leyte del Norte.
Juanito’s father Domingo Sr. and brother Domingo Jr. took actual possession of
the lot and planted trees. They also paid the real property taxes on the lot. Garcia
sold the lot to petitioner Atty. Sabitsana through a notarized deed of absolute Sale.
The Sale was registered with the Register of Deeds. He introduced concrete
improvements on the property, which thereafter were destroyed by a typhoon.
When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs applied for registration and coverage
of the lot under CA no.141. Atty. Sabitsana in a letter addressed to DENR’s
CENRO/PENRO Office in Biliran claiming that he was the true owner of the lot.
Juanito filed a complaint for quieting of title and preliminary injunction against the
petitioners claiming that they bought the land in bad faith and are exercising acts
of possession and ownership over the same, which acts constitute a cloud over
his title. In their answer with counterclaim, petitioners insisted that the RTC of
Biliran did not have Jurisdiction over the case, which involved title to or interest in
a parcel of land the assessed value which is nearly ₱1,230.00. ISSUE: Whether
or not RTC has jurisdiction over the case. HELD: Yes. The RTC has Jurisdiction
over the suit for quieting of title. On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the
rule that an action for quieting of title maybe instituted in the RTCs, regardless of
the assessed value of the real property in this dispute. Under rule 63 of the Rules
of Court, an action to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom may
be brought in the appropriate RTC. In order to prevent a cloud from being cast
upon his application for a title respondent filed a civil case to obtain a declaration
 of his rights. The action is one for declaratory relief which properly falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to rule 63 of the Rules.

 MANALANG VS. BACANI G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015 Allegations and
the relief sought in the complaint determines the nature of the complaint and
jurisdiction of the court FACTS: Petitioners were co-owners for lot in question and
caused a relocation and verification survey which showed that respondents had
encroached on a portion of said lot. When the respondents refused to vacate the
encroached portion and to surrender peaceful possession thereof despite
demands, the petitioners commenced this action for unlawful detainer arguing
illegal use and occupation. MTC dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and remanded case on appeal. MTC
ultimately dismissed case. ISSUE: Was an action for unlawful detainer proper?
HELD: NO. The MTC dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction over
the case. The dismissal was correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of the
complaint and the character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the
nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the action. All that the
petitioners alleged was the respondents’ “illegal use and occupation” of the
property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.
Venue

 BRIONES V. CA G.R. No. 204444 January 14, 2015. A venue stipulation need not
be complied with if the action assails the validity of the agreement itself since it
would be an implied recognition of its validity. FACTS: Virgilio C. Briones (Briones)
filed a complaint for Nullity of Mortgage Contract, Promissory Note, Loan
Agreement, Foreclosure of Mortgage, Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 290846, and Damages against Cash Asia before the RTC. He assailed
the validity of the foregoing contracts alleging that his signature was forged. Cash
Asia moved to dismiss the case for improper venue. In this regard, Cash Asia
pointed out the venue stipulation in the subject contracts stating that “all legal
actions arising out of this notice in connection with the Real Estate Mortgage
subject hereof shall only be brought in or submitted to the jurisdiction of the proper
court of Makati City.” Briones opposed the motion alleging that he should not be
covered by the venue stipulation in the subject contracts as he was never a party
therein. The RTC denied Cash Asia’s motion to dismiss. The CA annulled the
decision of the RTC, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Briones
filling the case before the courts of Makati. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA gravely
abused its discretion in ordering the outright dismissal of Briones’s complaint on
the ground of improper venue. HELD: The petition is meritorious. The parties are
not precluded from agreeing in writing on an exclusive venue, as qualified by
Section 4 of Rule 4. Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense
that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in
that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the
places fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the
ascertainment of the intention of the parties respecting the matter. As regards
restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown that
such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such
as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other venue," "shall only" preceding
the designation of venue, "to the exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar
import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional
forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. In this relation, case law likewise
provides that in cases where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions,
and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its validity, the exclusive venue
stipulation contained therein shall still be binding on the parties, and thus, the
complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue.35
Conversely, therefore, a complaint directly assailing the validity of the written
 instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained
therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue. It would
be inherently inconsistent for a complaint of this nature to recognize the exclusive
venue stipulation when it assails the validity of the instrument in which such
stipulation is contained. In this case, the venue stipulation found in the subject
contracts is indeed restrictive in nature, considering that it effectively limits the
venue of the actions arising therefrom to the courts of Makati City. However, it must
be emphasized that Briones' complaint directly assails the validity of the subject
contracts, claiming forgery in their execution. Given this circumstance, Briones
cannot be expected to comply with the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his
compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition of their validity. Hence,
pursuant to the general rules on venue, Briones properly filed his complaint before
a court in the City of Manila where the subject property is located.

 SWEET LINES, INC., V. TEVES G.R. No. L-37750 May 19, 1978. Provisions in
contracts of adhesion on limiting or transfering venue of actions are unenforceable
when they are contrary to public policy. FACTS: Private respondents Atty.
Leovigildo Tandog and Rogelio Tiro sued petitioner for being forced to change
ships, travelling under harsh conditions, and being forced to pay their fare twice.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue, which
was premised on Condition No. 14, which was printed at the back of the ticket
which provided that “…any and all actions arising out of the conditions and
provisions of this ticket, irrespective of where it is issued, shall be filed in the
competent courts in the City of Cebu”, but was denied by the trial court. Petitioner
filed the instant petition for prohibition for preliminary injunction, alleging that the
respondent judge has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceeding and “had acted without or in excess or in error of his jurisdiction or in
gross abuse of discretion.” ISSUE: Is Condition No. 14 limiting the venue of actions
valid and enforceable? HELD: Petitioner and respondents entered into a valid
contract of carriage. It should be borne in mind, however, that with respect to the
fourteen (14) conditions printed at the back of the passage tickets, these are
commonly known as "contracts of adhesion," the validity and/or enforceability of
which are determined by the circumstances in each case and the nature of the
conditions or terms sought to be enforced. Petitioner contends that Condition No.
14 is valid and enforceable, arguing among others, that the condition of the venue
of actions in the City of Cebu is proper since venue may be validly waived, citing
cases; that is an effective waiver of venue, valid and binding as such. Private
respondents argue, inter alia, that Condition No. 14 is not valid the condition which
was printed in fine letters is an imposition on the riding public and does not bind
respondents, citing cases; that while venue of actions may be transferred from one
province to another, such arrangement requires the "written agreement of the
parties", not to be imposed unilaterally; and that assuming that the condition is
valid, it is not exclusive and does not, therefore, exclude the filing of the action in
Misamis Oriental.The Court held that Condition No. 14 should be held as void and
unenforceable for the following reasons first, under circumstances in the inter-
island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers to the terms of
the conditions printed at the back of the passage tickets, on which Condition No.
14 is Printed in fine letters, and second, Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy
on transfer of venue of proceedings of this nature, since the same will prejudice
rights and interests of innumerable passengers in different parts of the country
who, under Condition No. 14, will have to file suits against petitioner only in the
City of Cebu. Condition No. 14 is subversive of public policy on transfers of venue
of actions. For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province
to another by agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to Rule 4, Section 3, of
the Rules of Court, such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically
negates the action of the claimants, such as the private respondents herein. The
 philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue of actions is the
convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote the ends of
justice.

 BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. vs. SPS. YUJUICO G.R. No. 175796, July
22, 2015 An action to recover the deficiency after extrajudicial foreclosure of a real
property mortgage is a personal action because it does not affect title to or
possession of real property, or any interest therein. FACTS: The City of Manila
expropriated five parcels of land located in Tondo, Manila, owned by respondent
spouses. However, two of the parcels of land were previously mortgaged to City
trust Banking Corporation, the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. The petitioner
subsequently filed a Motion to Intervene in the execution but the RTC denied the
motion for having been “filed out of time.” Hence, the petitioner decided to
extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage constituted on the two parcels of land. After
holding the public auction, the sheriff awarded the two lots to the petitioner as the
highest bidder. Claiming a deficiency, the petitioner sued the respondents to
recover such deficiency in the Makati RTC. The respondents moved to dismiss the
complaint on several grounds, namely: res judicata; stated no cause of action;
plaintiff’s claim had been waived, abandoned, or extinguished. Makati RTC denied
the respondents’ motion to dismiss. The respondents, in his reply, raised for the
first time the ground of improper venue. They contended that the action for the
recovery of the deficiency, being a supplementary action of the extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings, was a real action that should have been brought in the
Manila RTC because Manila was the place where the properties were located.
Makati RTC ruled that it would be improper for this Court to dismiss the plaintiff’s
complaint on the ground of improper venue, assuming that the venue is indeed
improperly laid, since the said ground was not raised in the defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the venue was improperly laid. 2) Assuming
that the venue had been improperly laid, whether or not is proper to dismiss the
case considering that the respondents had not raised such ground in their Motion
to Dismiss. HELD: 1) NO. According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a
real action is one that affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest
therein. Thus, an action for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of
mortgage on, real property is a real action. The real action is to be commenced
and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains why the action
is also referred to as a local action. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all
other actions as personal actions. Such actions may include those brought for the
recovery of personal property, or for the enforcement of some contract or recovery
of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of
an injury to the person or property. The venue of a personal action is the place
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant
or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which reason
the action is considered a transitory one. Based on the distinctions between real
and personal actions, an action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the real property mortgage is a personal action, for it does not affect
title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein. 2) NO. In civil
proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the
defendant if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court thus expressly stipulates that defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. As it relates to the place of trial, indeed, venue is meant to provide
convenience to the parties, rather than to restrict their access to the courts. In other
words, unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may be tried by a court
despite its being the improper venue.
B. Interpleader

 A remedy b person, who has property in his possession or an obligation to perform, either wholly
or partially, but who claims no interest in the subject, or whose interest, in whole or in part, is not
disputed by others, goes to court and asks that conflicting claimants to the property or obligation
be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine finally who is entitled to the
same.(Ocampo v. Tirona, G.R. No. 147812, April 6, 2005)

 An action of interpleader should be filed within a reasonable time after the dispute has risen without
waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants. Otherwise, it may be barred by laches or
undue delay. This is because after judgment is obtained against the plaintiff by one claimant, he is
already liable to the latter (WackWack Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Won, G.R. No. L-23851)
C. Declaratory relief and similar remedies

 The purpose of the action for the declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement
of the rights and obligations of the parties under said law or contract, for their guidance in
the enforcement thereof or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an
alleged breach thereof (Tambunting, Jr., v. Spouses Sumabat, G.R. No. 144101,
September 16, 2005)

 A third-party complaint is conceivable when the main case is one for declaratory relief. In
a third-party complaint, the defendant or third-party plaintiff is supposed to seek
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief from the third-party defendant in
respect to the claim of the plaintiff against him, while an action for declaratory relief is
confined merely to the interpretation of the terms of the contract ( commissioner of Customs
v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-21036, June 30 1977)

E.Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

Writ of Certiorari

 It is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is ordered to be elevated for
review and correction in matters of law (MERALCO Securities Industrial Corp. v. Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, G.R. No. L-46245, May 31, 1982)

Prohibition

 The function of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority and
to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice (Yusay v. court of Appeals, supra).

Mandamus

 It is a writ issued in the name of the state, to an inferior court, tribunal, corporation, board, officer o
person, commanding the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station (Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010)

F.Quo Warranto

 It is prerogative proceeding or writ issued by the court to determine the right to the use or exercise
of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or
if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege (Fortuno v. Palma, G.R. No. 70203, December 18,
1987)