Page 1 of 2
Special Civil Actions
RULE 62
Interpleader
 Mesina vs. IAC, GR L-70145, 13 November 1986,
 (proper remedy against conflicting claims)
Respondent Jose Go, purchased from Associated Bank Cashier's Check No.
011302 for P800,000.00. Unfortunately, Jose Go left said check on the top of
the desk of the bank manager when he left the bank. The bank manager
entrusted the check for safekeeping to a bank official, a certain Albert Uy, who
had then a visitor in the person of Alexander Lim. Uy had to answer a phone call
on a nearby telephone after which he proceeded to the men's room. When he
returned to his desk, his visitor Lim was already gone. When Jose Go inquired
for his cashier's check from Albert Uy, the check was not in his folder and
nowhere to be found.
The latter advised Jose Go to go to the bank to accomplish a "STOP
PAYMENT" order, which suggestion Jose Go immediately followed. He also
executed an affidavit of loss. Albert Uy went to the police to report the loss of
the check, pointing to the person of Alexander Lim as the one who could shed
light on it. The records of the police show that Associated Bank received the lost
check for clearing, coming from Prudential Bank, Escolta Branch. The check
was immediately dishonored by Associated Bank by sending it back to
Prudential Bank, with the words "Payment Stopped" stamped on it. However,
the same was again returned to Associated Bank on and for the second time it
was dishonored.
Several days later, respondent Associated Bank received a letter, dated
January 9, 1984, from a certain Atty. Lorenzo Navarro demanding payment
on the cashier's check in question, which was being held by his client. Unsure
of what to do on the matter, respondent Associated Bank on February 2,
1984 filed an action for Interpleader naming as respondent, Jose Go and one
John Doe, Atty. Navarro's then unnamed client. On even date, respondent
bank received summons and copy of the complaint for damages of a
certain Marcelo A. Mesina from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan
City. Respondent bank moved to amend its complaint, having been notified for
the first time of the name of Atty. Navarro's client and substituted Marcelo A.
Mesina for John Doe.
Marcelo Mesina when asked how he came to possess the check, he said it was
paid to him by Alexander Lim in a "certain transaction". Meanwhile, Jose Go
filed his answer on February 24, 1984 in the Interpleader Case and moved to
participate as intervenor in the complain for damages. Albert Uy filed a
motion of intervention and answer in the complaint for Interpleader.
Petitioner instead of filing his answer to the complaint in the interpleader
filed on May 17, 1984 an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Ex Abudante Cautela
alleging lack of jurisdiction in view of the absence of an order to litigate,
failure to state a cause of action and lack of personality to sue.
Respondent bank in the other civil case for damages moved to dismiss suit in
view of the existence already of the Interpleader case. The trial court in the
interpleader case issued an order dated July 13, 1984, denying the motion to
dismiss of petitioner Mesina and ruling that respondent bank's complaint
sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for interpleader.
Petitioner Mesina filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction with
IAC to set aside 1) order of respondent court denying his omnibus Motion
to Dismiss 2) order of 3) the order of default against him.
IAC rendered its decision dimissing the petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON the orders of respondent Judge of RTC Manila may be annulled by giving
due course to the interpleader suit and declaring petitioner in default.
HELD:
No. Petitioner stubbornly insists that there is no showing of conflicting claims
and interpleader is out of the question. There is enough evidence to establish
the contrary. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances,
respondent bank merely took the necessary precaution not to make a
mistake as to whom to pay and therefore interpleader was its proper
remedy. It has been shown that the interpleader suit was filed by respondent
bank because petitioner and Jose Go were both laying their claims on the
check, petitioner asking payment thereon and Jose Go as the purchaser or
owner.
The allegation of petitioner that respondent bank had effectively relieved itself
of its primary liability under the check by simply filing a complaint for
interpleader is belied by the willingness of respondent bank to issue a
certificate of time deposit in the amount of P800,000 representing the cashier's
check in question in the name of the Clerk of Court of Manila to be
awarded to whoever will be found by the court as validly entitled to it.
Said validity will depend on the strength of the parties' respective rights
and titles thereto.
Bank filed the interpleader suit not because petitioner sued it but
because petitioner is laying claim to the same check that Go is claiming. On the
very day that the bank instituted the case in interpleader, it was not aware of
any suit for damages filed by petitioner against it as upported by the fact that
the interpleader case was first entitled Associated Bank vs. Jose Go and John
Doe, but later on changed to Marcelo A. Mesina for John Doe when his name
became known to respondent bank. The records of the case show that
respondent bank had to resort to details in support of its action for
Interpleader. Before it resorted to Interpleader, respondent bank took a
precautionary and necessary measures to bring out the truth.
RULE 63
Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
 Edades v. Edades
 declaratory judgment on his hereditary rights in the property of
his alleged father and incidentally the recognition of his status as
an illegitimate son
Juan Edades alleges he is an illegitimate son of Emigdio Edades and had always
enjoyed the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the status of
illegitimate child by direct and positive acts of his father and of the legitimate
children of the latter; that as such illegitimate child he is entitled to share in the
inheritance of his father under the law; that as the legitimate children of his
father will deny, as in fact they have denied his right to inherit, and such denial
may ripen into a costly litigation, he brought the present action for the
determination of his hereditary rights.
Defendants, instead of answering, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
RTC – MTD dismissed. declaratory relief is improper, stating: that “An action for
declaratory relief just for the purpose of clearing away doubt, uncertainty, or
insecurity to the Plaintiff’s status or rights would seem to be improper and
outside the purview of a declaratory relief. Neither can it be availed of for the
purpose of compelling recognition of such rights, if disputed or objected to.”
ISSUE:
WON the remedy sought/declaratory relief was improperly filed?
RULING:
The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in connection
with the determination of the alleged status of the Plaintiff as an illegitimate
son of Emigdio Edades
1. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ACTION TO DETERMINE HEREDITARY RIGHTS AND
ESTABLISHED STATUS OF CHILD NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF RELIEF. —
Special
Proceedings
 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff's action seeking to determine his hereditary rights in the property of his
alleged father and incidentally the recognition of his status as an illegitimate
son can not be maintained as one for declaratory relief because it neither
concerns a deed, will, contract or of her written instrument, nor does it affect a
statute or ordinance, the construction or validity of which is involved. Nor is it
predicated on any justiciable controversy, for the alleged right of inheritance
which plaintiff desires to assert has not yet accrued for the simple reason that
his alleged father has not yet died. And the law is clear that "the rights to the
succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent"
(Article 777, new Civil Code).
Respondents Capapas, Angangco and Arañas filed their joint answer, denying,
like their co-respondents, 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.
- They filed a joint motion asking the court to set a preliminary
hearing on the special defense that the petition does not state a
cause of action for declaratory relief  Denied.

RTC – importation by means of barter is manifestly against the spirit and letter
However, the present action, though captioned as one for declaratory relief, is
of Sec. 1 of Republic Act No. 1194 construed in relation to Sec. 6 of Republic Act
not merely aimed at determining the hereditary right of the Plaintiff to
1410 and is, therefore, illegal; forfeiture is proper.
eventually preserve his right to the property of his alleged father, but rather to
establish his status as illegitimate child in order that, should his father die, his
right to inherit may, not be disputed, as at present, by the other Defendants ISSUE:
who are the legitimate children of his father.
WON the complaint for declaratory relief should be given due course, although
The present action may be maintained in the light of the view herein there has been a breach of the law, as the breach continued and could continue
expressed. up to January 21, 1960, when the barter permit would expire, the breach is not
yet complete?
2. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN; WHEN ACTION TO ESTABLISH STATUS AS SUCH MAY
BE BROUGHT. — Although there is no express provision in the new Civil Code RULING:
which prescribes the step that may be taken to establish the status of an
illegitimate child as in case of a natural child who can bring an action for
recognition (Article 285), this silence notwithstanding, a similar action may be 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
brought under similar circumstances considering that an illegitimate child other
than natural is now given successional rights and there is need to establish his the action for declaratory relief would prejudge the action for violation of the
barter law.
status before such rights can be asserted and enforced. This right is impliedly
recognized by Article 289 which permits the investigation of the paternity or
maternity of an illegitimate child in the same manner as in the case of natural Judgment appealed from is set aside and the action for declaratory relief
child. dismissed.

NOTES:
Who may File?
Under the law, an action for declaratory relief is proper when any person is
interested “under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute or ordinance” in order to determine any
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute, or
to declare his rights or duties thereunder (section 1, Rule 66).
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 … 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.

Requisites of an action for Declaratory Relief:

(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
controversy;
(4) the issue involved must be ripened for judicial determination
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.

PRACTICAL: In fine, the permit has expired 2 years before and all shipments
have been delivered. 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
Sebastian Sarmiento, et al. v. Hon. Capapas, et al. 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.
original action  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. BT-
1380 (SP) in the name of the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing 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

New motion filed in substitute to above declaratory relief, in substitution of

the petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction.

- CIR Revenue issued an authority to release the said imported goods

- 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
- 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
- Barter Permit was issued in violation of the provisions of existing laws

Special
Proceedings