OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

1. Sequestration – is the means to place or cause to be placed under the PCGG’s possession or
control properties, building or office, including business enterprises and entities, for the purpose of
preventing the destruction, concealment or dissipation of, and otherwise conserving and preserving
the same until it can be determined through appropriate judicial proceedings, whether the property
was in truth “ill-gotten.”
 The PCGG
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is a quasi-judicial government
agency whose primary mandate is to recover ill-gotten wealth accumulated by Ferdinand
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in
the Philippines or abroad.
 The power of the PCGG to sequester is merely provisional as provided for under E.O. No. 1,
Section 3 (c).
 Sequestration is akin to the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment, or receivership.
 Purpose of sequestration
Tersely put, the ultimate purpose of sequestration is to recover the sequestered
properties in favor of the government in case they turn out to be ill-gotten. This
function to dispose of the property is reserved to the Sandiganbayan. Until the
Sandiganbayan determines whether the property was in truth and in fact “ill-gotten,” the
sequestration shall subsist. In case of a finding that sequestered properties are ill-gotten, the
property shall be returned to the lawful owner, to the people, through the government;
otherwise, the sequestered property shall be returned to the previous owner.
2. Deposit – to place into custody a certain property in court.
 While deposit is not among the provisional remedies mentioned in the Rules of Court, the
same may be granted on equitable considerations.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

 What is a Civil Action? (Adversarial)

A: It is an action by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong (Section 3 (a), Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure).
 Kinds of Civil Actions
1. Ordinary Civil Action; (Rule 1-57 of ROC) or
2. Special Civil Action – (Rule 62-71)
 What is a Special Civil Action?
A: It is a kind of action which is governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to
specific rules prescribed under Rules 62 to 71 and such as may be declared by the Supreme
Court.
 Q: What is the nature of a Special Civil Action?
A: It is an action which has reference to special matters requiring special procedure
 Ordinary Rules will apply if the Special Civil Action is absence or the law is absence. Even if the
action is govern under the Special Civil Action.
 Q: What are the provisions of Ordinary Civil Actions which are applicable in Special
Civil Actions?
A: The following:
1. As a general rule, the rules on venue shall be applicable in SCAs except as otherwise
provided by the particular provisions of the said SCAs;
 2. The formal requirements of a pleading provided under Sections 1 to 5 of Rule 7 is applicable
in SCAs;
3. The rule on motion to dismiss is applicable in SCAs ( National Power Corporation vs. Valera,
G.R. No. L-15295, November 30, 1961);
4. Rule on Pre-trial Conference.
 The following are the SCAs under the Rules of Court:
1. Interpleader (Rule 62)
2. Declaratory relief, quieting of title, reformation of instrument and consolidation of ownership
(Rule 63)
3. Review of the judgment, final order and resolution of the COMELEC and COA (Rule 64)
4. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Rule 65)
5. Quo warranto (Rule 66)
6. Expropriation (Rule 67)
7. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68)
8. Partition (Rule 69)
9. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70)
10. Contempt (Rule 71)
SCA’s not found in ROC
11. Writ of Kalikasan (Section 1, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-08, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases);
12. Writ of Continuing Mandamus (Section 1, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-08)
 How may SCAs be commenced? It depends upon the type of SCA:
a. By way of a complaint: ( Use the Ordinary Civil Actions) (Adversarial)
1. Interpleader (Rule 62)
2. Expropriation (Rule 67)
3. Foreclosure of Mortgage (Rule 67)
4. Partition (Rule 69)
5. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70)
6. Quieting of Title or Removal of Clouds (Rule 63)
In complaint, there is adverse party, elements of cause of action, obligation of defendant, right
of plaintiff, violation that was committed and damage suffered by the plaintiff. The parties are called
as plaintiff and defendant.
In criminal actions, if the case is already in court, it is complainant and court. If the case is still
in the prosecutions office, private complainant and respondents.
b. By way of a Petition: (Not adversarial)
1. Declaratory Relief and Other Similar Remedies (Rule 63)
2. Certiorari from the judgment or final orders of the COMELEC or COA (Rule 64)
3. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)
4. Indirect Contempt (Rule 71)
5. Writ of Kalikasan (Section 1, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-08, Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases)
6. Writ of Continuing Mandamus (Section 1, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-08)
 Ordinary Civil Action is commenced by way of a complaint.
 Under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary civil action cannot be joined
together with a special civil action.
 The SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction cases.

Heirs of Bertulfo Hinog vs. Hon. Melicor

 SC: This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according the parties
seeking any of the writs as absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of
the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs.
 Q: How can the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
respondent/defendant in SCAs?
A: By the service on him (respondent/defendant) of its order or resolution indicating its initial
action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.
 Q: What are the actions of the court on the petition?
A: The following:
1. Dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal; or
2. Require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. (If
dili e dismiss)
 In Ordinary Civil Actions, jurisdiction is acquired through valid service of summons or voluntary
appearance in court.
 The following may be filed originally with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for Certiorari
2. Petition for Prohibition
3. Petition for Mandamus
4. Petition for Quo Warranto

RULE 62
INTERPREADER
 Interpleader – is a remedy whereby a person who has property whether personal or real, in
his possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both,
or claims an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the conflicting claimants, comes
to court and asks that the persons who claim the property or who consider themselves entitled
to demand compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate among themselves, in order to
determine finally who is entitled to the property or payment of the obligation.

Alvarez vs. Commonwealth of the Phils. 65 Phil 302

SC: The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against double liability but to protect him
against a double vexation in respect of one liability.

INTERPLEADER VS. INTERVENTION

Interpleader Intervention

Is an original action 1 Is an ancillary action

Presupposes that the plaintiff has 2 Is proper in any of the four (4) situations
no interest in the subject matter of mentioned in Rule 19 wherein a third
the action or has an interest person has a legal interest over the subject
therein which, in whole or in part, matter of the action, or in the success of
 is not disputed by the other parties
to the action
The defendants are being sued
precisely to implead them.
either or both of the defendant, or will be
greatly affected in the disposition of the
property subject of the action
3 In a complaint-in-intervention, the
defendants are already original parties to
the pending suit.

Interpleader Intervention

Can be commenced by filing a 4 Can be availed of by filing a motion with leave of

complaint before the proper court.
In case of adverse decision in
interpleader the remedy of the
aggrieved party is to file an appeal
The period to file answer is within
fifteen (15) days from service of
summons.
court to file intervention together with the
attached pleading in intervention.
5 In case of denial of intervention, the aggrieved
party may file an appeal or file the claim in a
separate action.
6 The period to file answer to the complaint-in-
intervention is within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the order admitting the intervention.

 WHEN IS INTERPLEADER PROPER? A person may bring an action for interpleader when:
1. There are two or more conflicting claimants;
2. Plaintiff files the action to compel the conflicting claimants to interplead and litigate their
several claims among themselves;
3. That the conflicting claims is upon the same subject matter which are or may be made
against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter; and
4. An interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants.
 “Conflicting Claim”
Lui Enterprises, Inc. vs. Zuellig Pharma Corporation and PBCom
G.R. No. 193494 [March 7, 2014]
SC: An interpleader complaint may be filed by a lessee against those who have conflicting
claims over the rent due for the property leased. This remedy is for the lessee to protect him or
her from “double vexation in respect of one liability.” He or she may file the interpleader case to
extinguish his or her obligation to pay rent, remove him or her from the adverse claimants’
dispute, and compel the parties with conflicting claims to litigate among themselves.
 When to file an action for interpleader?
Wack-Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. vs. Lee Won, et al
G.R. No. L-23851 [March 26, 1976]
SC: An action for interpleader must be filed within a reasonable time after the dispute
has arisen, otherwise it may be barred by laches. Where a party was aware of the dispute
and in fact had been sued by one of the claimants and the former did not implead the other
claimant, he can no longer invoke the remedy of interpleader.

Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, Inc. 548 SCRA 273
 F: Petitioners alleged that they did not pay the rentals because they did not know to whom
payment should be made.
SC: The failure to pay is unjustified because if such were the case, they were not without any
remedy. They should have availed of the provisions of the Civil Code on the consignation of
payment and the Rules of Court on interpleader. An action for interpleader is proper
when the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals should be made due to
conflicting claims on the property (or on the right to collect).

 When to file an action for interpleader?

Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, Inc.
548 SCRA 273
SC: An interpleader allows a person to pass the legal problem over to the court which will have
to eventually adjudicate upon the adverse claims, enabling the plaintiff to protect himself from
possible lawsuits initiated by any of the claimants.

Ocampo vs. Tirona

455 SCRA 62
SC: When the court orders that the claimants litigate among themselves, there arises in
reality a new action and the former are styled interpleaders, and in such a case the pleading
which initiates the action is called complaint in interpleader and not a cross-complaint.

McMicking vs. Martinez

15 Phils. 204
SC: A sheriff, in possession of the proceeds of the sale of property under execution, may file an
action for interpleader against several persons claiming adversely the proceeds of such sale.

De Jesus vs. Sociedad Arrendataria de Galleras de Pasay

23 Phils. 76
SC: A lessee who is in doubt as to the person to whom he should pay the rent, because the
property leased is claimed by several persons, may file an action for interpleader against such
persons.

Beltran vs. People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation

L-25138 [August 28, 1969]
SC: Interpleader is improper in an action where defendants have conflicting claims against the
plaintiff. (The defendants have conflicting claims against each other)

Vda. de Camilo vs. Aranio

G.R. No. L-15653 [September 29, 1961]
SC: Where there are no conflicting claims among the defendants, their respective claims being
separate and distinct from each other, the complaint for interpleader may be dismissed for lack
of cause of action.

 Jurisdiction over interpleader cases:

 A. Personal Property
1. If the value of the personal property exceeds P300, 000.00 outside of Metro Manila
or P400, 000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies with the RTC;
2. If the value of the personal property does not exceed P300, 000.00 outside of Metro
Manila or P400, 000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies with the MTC.
B. Real Property
1. If the assessed value of the real property exceeds P20, 000.00 outside of Metro
Manila or P50, 000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies with the RTC;
2. If the assessed value of the real property does not exceed P20, 000.00 outside of
Metro Manila or P50, 000.00 within Metro Manila, jurisdiction lies with the MTC.
 Venue in an action for interpleader:
A. Real Property
- Venue lies where the property is located or any portion thereof is situated.
B. Personal Property
- Venue lies with the residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant at the election
of the plaintiff.
 Upon filing of the complaint, the court shall:
1. Issue an order requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another;
2. If interests of justice so require, the court may direct in such order that the subject matter be
paid or delivered to the court.
 Q: To whom shall summons be served?
A: Summons shall be served upon the conflicting claimants, together with a copy of the
complaint and order.
 Within the time for filing an answer, each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on the
following grounds:
1. Impropriety of the interpleader action; or
2. On other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
 Q: What is the remedy in case of denial of the motion?
A: If the motion is denied, the movant may file his answer within the remaining period, but
which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
 If a complaint is filed, served the defendant summons, the latter has 15 days to submit an
answer but within that 15 days period, he can filed a motion to dismiss or filed an answer. If the
defendant opts to file a motion to dismiss, if the motion is denied, the defendant has opportunity
to file an answer within the remaining period.

Sec. 5. Answer and other pleadings. – Each claimant shall file his answer setting
forth his claim within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons upon him,
serving a copy thereof upon each of the other conflicting claimants who may file
their reply thereto as provided by these Rules. If any claimant fails to plead within
the time herein fixed, the court may, on motion, declare him in default and
thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect to the subject
matter.
The parties in an interpleader action may file counterclaims, cross-claims, third-
party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by these Rules.
 Q: What are the courses of action of the court after filing of the pleadings and pre-
trial have been conducted?
A: The court shall:
1. Proceed to determine their respective rights; and
2. Adjudicate the several claims of the claimants
 Q: Who pays the docket fees in an action for interpleader?
A: The person who files the complaint pays the docket and other lawful fees. However, these
fees, as well as the costs and litigation expenses, shall constitute a lien or charge upon the
subject matter of the action, unless the court shall order otherwise.

DECLARATORY RELIEF AND OTHER SIMILAR REMEDIES

[RULE 63]

 Q: What remedies are available under Rule 63?

A: The following:
1. Declaratory relief;
2. Reformation of instrument;
3. Quieting of title or removal of clouds; and
4. Consolidation of ownership
 Q: What is Declaratory Relief?
A: It is an action by any person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or
validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute; 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 construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute.
 PURPOSE
Meralco vs. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc.
374 SCRA 276
SC: An action for declaratory relief is brought to secure an authoritative statement of the rights
and obligations of the parties under a contract or statute for their guidance in the enforcement
or compliance with the same and not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach.

 The purpose is to seek for a judicial interpretation of an instrument or for a judicial declaration
of a person’s rights under a statute and not to ask for an affirmative relief beyond the
purpose of the petition. It is not brought to settle issues arising from a breach because after the
breach of contract or statute, the petition can no longer be brought.
 Gusto lang nimo mahibal’an kung unsa ang sakto na interpretation sa will, contract, deed etc.
 It does not settled issues arising from its alleged breach.
 Proper lang ni na remedy kung wala pay violations or breach.

Sec. 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or
other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order
or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach
or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to
 determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of
his rights or duties, thereunder.
An action 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, may be brought under this Rule.

 The subject matter in a petition for declaratory relief is any of the following:
EXCLUSIVE LIST
1. Deed
2. Will
3. Contract or other written instrument
4. Statute
5. Executive order or regulation
6. Ordinance; or
7. Any other governmental regulation

Reyes vs. Ortiz

628 SCRA 1 [August 14, 2010]
SC: The subject matters to be tested in a petition for declaratory relief are exclusive. Any
other matter not mentioned therein is deemed excluded. This is under the principle of expressio
unius est exclusion alterius.

 JURISDICTION

City of Lapu-Lapu vs. Philippine Economic Zone Authority

G.R. No. 184203 [November 26, 2014]
SC: The court with jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief is the Regional Trial Court, the
subject matter of litigation in an action for declaratory relief being incapable of pecuniary
estimation (a matter that we cannot express or quantify in terms of money such as specific
performance) under Section 19 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.

 A petition for declaratory relief must satisfy six (6) requisites:

1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
2. The terms of the said statute or document and the validity thereof are doubtful and require
judicial construction;
3. There must have been no breach of the statute or document in question (Otherwise,
the action can be converted into an ordinary civil actions);
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
(Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc., 542 SCRA 470 )
 You can only avail declaratory relief if there are no other appropriate remedy under
the ROC. (ex: claim of money vs DR – ddto ka sa claim of money)
 WHEN PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IS NOT PROPER

Edades vs. Edades

99 Phil. 675
SC: An action for declaratory relief to ask the court to declare his filiation and consequently his
hereditary rights is improper. The action is not based on a deed, a will, statute or any of those
enumerated as subject matter of the petition. (The proper remedy is declaration of heirship)

Reyes vs. Dizon

628 SCRA 1
SC: A petition for declaratory relief is not proper for the purpose of seeking enlightenment as to
the true import of a judgment. The remedy is to move for a clarificatory judgment.

 A petition for declaratory relief is not proper to assail a judgment. Before judgment
becomes final and executory, the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration, motion
for new trial, or perfect an appeal. After the judgment become final and executory, he may file
a petition for relief from judgment or an action to annul the judgment. Besides, Section 1 of
Rule 63 does not mention a judgment as a proper subject of a petition for declaratory relief.

The Honorable Monetary Board, et al vs. Philippine Veterans Bank

G.R. No. 189751 [January 21, 2015]
SC: The decision of the BSP Monetary Board cannot be a proper subject for a petition for
declaratory relief since it was issued by the BSP Monetary Board in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial powers or functions.
Kung ang final order is issued by an office by virtue of their judicial or quasi - judicial power,
you cannot assail their judgment thru a declaratory relief.
Even if the subject is one enumerated under the Rules, where the contract or statute is clear
in its terms and there is no doubt as to its meaning and validity, a petition for declaratory relief
is improper. The petition presupposes that the terms of a document or of a statute are of
doubtful validity and, thus, require judicial interpretation.

 WHEN PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PROPER

Secretary of Finance Cesar B. Purisima, et al vs. Carmelo F. Lazatin, et al
G.R. No. 210588 [November 29, 2016]

SC: Members of the Congress possess the legal standing to question acts that amount
to a usurpation of the legislative power of Congress. Legislative power is exclusively vested in
the Legislature. When the implementing rules and regulations issued by the Executive
contradict or add to what Congress has provided by legislation, the issuance of these rules
amounts to an undue exercise of legislative power and an encroachment of Congress’
prerogatives.
 Macasiano vs. NHA
G.R. No. 107921 [July 1, 1993]
SC: Petition for declaratory relief may be treated as a petition for prohibition if the
case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for the public
good.

Wilson P. Gamboa vs. Finance Secretary Teves

G.R. No. 176579 [June 28, 2011]
SC: Petition for declaratory relief may be treated as a petition for mandamus
considering that grave injustice would result in the interpretation of a banking law.

 In a petition for declaratory relief, the petitioner seeks for a declaration of his rights under
an instrument or a statute. As a rule, therefore, affirmative reliefs (ex: to grant damages
or to grant cause of suit etc.) as in ordinary civil actions are NOT granted in declaratory
petitions. There were some instances, however, when affirmative relief were granted.
 No executory process in declaratory relief as in ordinary civil actions
As a general principle, the judgment in a declaratory relief is said to stand by itself and NO
executory process follows as of course. It is unlike the judgment in an ordinary civil
action which is coercive in character and enforceable by execution. Jurisprudence, however,
does not absolutely close its doors to an executory process in a petition for declaratory relief.

Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. vs. Bonifacio

651 SCRA 327
SC: The judgment in a petition for declaratory relief can be carried into effect without
requiring the parties to pay damages or 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 the respondent.

Sec. 2. Parties. – All persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by the declaration shall be made parties; and no declaration shall, except
as otherwise provided in these Rules, prejudice the rights of persons not parties to
the action.

Sec. 3. Notice on Solicitor General. – In any action which involves the validity of a
statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the
Solicitor General shall be notified by the party assailing the same and shall be
entitled to be heard upon such question is involved.

Sec. 4. Local Government Ordinances. – In any action involving the validity of a

local government ordinance, the corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the local
governmental unit involved shall be similarly notified and entitled to be heard. If
such ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor General shall also be
notified and entitled to be heard.

Sec. 5. Court Action Discretionary. – Except in actions falling under second

paragraph of Section 1 of this Rule, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may
 refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and 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 under the circumstances.
Sec. 6. Conversion into Ordinary Action. – If before the final termination of the
case, a breach or violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation should take place, the
action may thereupon be converted into an ordinary action, and the parties shall be
allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper.

• Note: An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the
instruments involved or of the rights arising thereunder.

Crisostomo Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay, Aklan

G.R. No. 211356 [September 29, 2014]
SC: The closure and demolition of the hotel rendered futile any possible guidelines that may
be issued by the trial court for carrying out the directives in the challenged E.O. No. 10.
Indubitably, the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that declaratory relief is the proper
remedy given such a situation.

• The following are the other remedies found in Rule 63:

1. Reformation of Instrument
2. Quieting of Title or Removal of Clouds
3. Consolidation of Ownership

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT

• Reformation of Instrument – is a remedy in equity by means of which a written instrument

is made or construed so as to express or conform to the real intention of the parties
when some error or mistake has been committed. (Zaragosa, Tuason & Co. vs. Certified Clubs,
52718-R, November 24, 1975)
• Purpose
The instrument is to be reformed because despite the meeting of the minds of the
parties as to the object and cause of the contract, the instrument which is supposed to
embody the agreement of the parties does not reflect their true agreement by reason of
mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident. The action is brought so the true
intention of the parties may be expressed in the instrument (Art. 1359, Civil Code)
• Instances where remedy of reformation of instrument is proper:
1. Art. 1359
2. When a mutual mistake of the parties’ causes the failure of the instrument to disclose
their real agreement, said instrument may be reformed (Art. 1361)
3. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or inequitably in such
a way that the instrument does not show their true intention, the former may ask for the
reformation of the instrument (Art. 1362)
4. When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that the
instrument did not state their real agreement, but concealed that fact from the
former, the instrument may be reformed (Art. 1363)
5. When through the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the part of
the person drafting the instrument or of the clerk or typist, the instrument does not
 express the true intention of the parties, the courts may order that the instrument be
reformed. (Art. 1364)
6. If two parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of real or personal property but
the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a right of
repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper (Art. 1365)

• Instances when reformation of instrument is not proper:

1. If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds of
the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but annulment of
the contract. (Art. 1359) Because in reformation, it presupposes that there was a meeting of
minds wala lang na reflect of tarong ilang mga agreement sa contract. But if wala meeting of
minds, then the remedy is not reformation but to annul the contract.
2. There shall be no reformation in the following:
a. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
b. Wills; (Declaratory Relief)
c. When the real agreement is void (Art. 1366)
3. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument, he cannot
subsequently ask for its reformation (Art. 1367)
• Under Article 1368 of the Civil Code, reformation may be ordered at the instance of
either party or his successors in interest, if the mistake was mutual; otherwise, upon
petition of the injured party, or his heirs and assigns.

QUIETING OF TITLE OR REMOVAL OF CLOUDS

• Quieting of Title – is a special civil action, remedial in nature, which has for its purpose an
adjudication that a claim of title or an interest in property, adverse to that of the complainant,
is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever afterward free
from any danger of the hostile claim. This action is for the promotion of right and justice.
(Almeyda vs. Ilacas, 64757-R, January 21, 1982)
• When is quieting of title proper?
1. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by
reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is 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 may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet title
(Art. 476)
2. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the
contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been
barred by extinctive prescription (Art. 478)
3. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real
property or any interest therein.
• Requisites of quieting of title:
1. The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real
property subject of the action; and
2. The deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must
be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
legal efficacy (Guillermo Salvador, et al vs. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016 )
 • JURISDICTION
Note: Jurisdiction over a real action depends on the assessed value of the property involved
as alleged in the complaint.
a. If the assessed value of the property exceeds P 20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila or P
50,000.00, if within Metro Manila, the proper (where the property is located) Regional
Trial Court has jurisdiction.
b. If the assessed value of the property does not exceed P 20,000.00 outside of Metro
Manila or P50,000.00 if within Metro Manila, the proper Municipal Trial Court has
jurisdiction.

CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP

• The action brought to consolidate ownership is not for the purpose of consolidating the
ownership of property in the person of the vendee or buyer but for the registration of
the property. The lapse of the redemption period without the seller a retro exercising his
right of redemption consolidates ownership or title upon the person of the vendee by
operation of law.

Cruz vs. Leis

327 SCRA 570
SC: It bears stressing that notwithstanding Article 1607, the recording in the Registry of
Property of the consolidation of ownership of the vendee is not a condition sine qua non to the
transfer of ownership. As title is already vested in the vendee a retro, his failure to
consolidate his title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code does not impair such title or ownership
for the method prescribed thereunder is merely for the purpose of registering the
consolidated title.

• Jurisdiction over consolidation of ownership cases

Petition for Consolidation of Ownership is an action the subject matter of which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefor within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court (Sec. 19, B.P.Blg. 129)

REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS OF THE COMELEC AND

COA
[RULE 64]

• Must correlate with Rule 65. The remedy available for this is Rule 65.
• Constitutional Basis of the Power of the Supreme Court to review decision of
COMELEC and COA
Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution provides that: “Unless the Constitution or the law
otherwise provides, decision of the constitutional commission shall be reviewed by the
Supreme Court by way of petition for certiorari within thirty (30) days from receipt thereon.”

Candelario L. Versoza, Jr. vs. Guilermo N. Carague

 G.R. No. 157838 [March 8, 2011]
SC: Decisions, orders, or rulings of the Commission on Audit may be brought
to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65 by the aggrieved party.
RULE 64 VS. RULE 65
• Rule 64 – direct filing in SC while in Rule 65 – either RTC, CA and SC.
• Rule 64 – Although the remedy is certiorari, the period to file is (30) days from receipt of final
judgment of COA or COMELEC but in Rule 65, the period is (60) days.

• DECISIONS OF THE MTC/RTC IN ELECTION CASES

• In election cases involving an act or omission of a MTC/RTC, the petition shall be filed
exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Decision from MTC/RTC, you cannot avail Rule 64 because Rule 64 talks about decision of
COMELEC or COA. If from MTC/RTC, then file an appeal to COMELEC.
• Rule 64 provides for the review of judgments, final orders or resolutions of the
COMELEC and the COA.
Note: The orders, ruling or judgment must be issued in the exercise of adjudicatory
power (quasi )or quasi-judicial power (not administrative power) of the COMELEC or
COA.
Note: The review extends only to final decisions or resolutions of COMELEC en
banc (does not include COMELEC in Division) and not to interlocutory orders issued by a
division.

Annaliza Galindo and Evelinda Pinto vs. COA

G.R. No. 210788 [January 10, 2017]
SC: In administrative disciplinary cases decided by the COA, the proper remedy
in case of an adverse decision is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission and not a
petition for certiorari before this Court (Supreme Court) under Rule 64.
Note: Rule 64 covers only decisions, orders, or ruling of the COMELEC and COA in
the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers only in all related election
controversies.

Leo Querubin, et al vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 218787 [December 8, 2015]
SC: The instant petition revolves around the issue on whether or not Smartmatic JV is
eligible to participate in the bidding process for the COMELEC’s procurement of 23,000 units of
optical mark readers. The case does not stem from an election controversy involving the
election, qualification, or the returns of an elective office.

• MODE of REVIEW [section 2, rule 64]

• A judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC and the COA may be brought by the
aggrieved party to the SC on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.
• Decisions and resolutions of the COMELEC and COA are reviewable by the SC, not via an
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 (mode of appeal kung gikan kag CA, then intend to appeal
to SC) but through a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.
• Note: The only question that may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64
of the Rules of Court is whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• RULE 64 VS. RULE 65
Rule 64 Rule 65

It involves the review of the 1 It involves review of the

judgment, final orders, or
resolution of the COMELEC and
COA
The petition shall be filed to
the SC within 30 days from
notice of the judgment or final
order sought to be reviewed
Filing of motion for
reconsideration can be made if
allowed by the Rules of the
Commission
decision, orders or resolution
of the court or tribunal
exercising judicial and quasi-
judicial functions
2 It shall be filed within 60 days
from the notice of judgment,
orders or resolution or notice
of the denial of the motion for
reconsideration or new trial
3 Filing of a motion for
reconsideration is a condition
sine qua non for the filing of
the petition, unless it falls
under the exception

Sec. 3. Time to file Petition. – The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days
from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The
filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or
resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party
may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than
five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

• Note: The fresh period rule will not apply in Rule 64. Because this is not a mode of
appeal.
• Filing of motion for reconsideration
The well-established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable
condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The filing of the motion for reconsideration is intended to afford
the public respondent the opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by
way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.
Exceptions:
(a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court,
(c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and further
delay would prejudice the interests of the Government, or of the petitioner, or the subject
matter of the petition is perishable,
(d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless,
and there is extreme urgency for the relief,
 (f) where, in criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent, and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable,
(g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) Where the proceeding ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object; and
(i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.

• Remedy in case of denial of MFR

The aggrieved party may file a petition within the remaining period, but which
shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of the denial.
Under Rule 64, a party may file a petition for certiorari within thirty (30) days from
notice of the judgment being assailed. If a MFR is filed, the reglementary period includes
the time taken to file the motion for reconsideration and is only interrupted once
the motion is filed.

Sec. 5. Form and Contents of Petition. – The petition shall be verified (and a
certificate of non-forum shopping’s) and filed in eighteen (18) legible copies. The
petition shall name the aggrieved party as petitioner and shall join as respondents
the Commission concerned and the person or persons interested in sustaining the
judgment, final order or resolution a quo. The petition shall state the facts with
certainty, present clearly the issues involved, set forth the grounds and brief
arguments relied upon for review, and pray for judgment annulling or modifying
the questioned judgment, final order or resolution. Findings of fact of the
Commission supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.
The petition shall be accompanied by a clear and legible duplicate original or
certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof,
together with certified true copies of such material portions of the records as are
referred to therein and other documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The
requisite number of copies of the petition shall contain plain copies of all
documents attached to the original copy of said petition.
The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed
within the period fixed (knusa nmo nadawat and assail decision, kanusa ka nag file ug
MFR, when na denied and MFR)herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against
forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of service of a copy
thereof on the Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely
payment of docket and other lawful fees.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

• Grave abuse of discretion refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is

equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to
amount an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or
to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
• Note: Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion.

Sec. 6. Order to Comment. – If the Supreme Court finds the petition sufficient in form
and substance, it shall order the respondents to file their comments on the petition
within ten (10) days from notice thereof; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the
petition outright. The Court may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for
delay, or the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.

Sec. 8. Effect of Filing. – The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the
execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, unless
the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.

Sec. 9. Submission for Decision. – Unless the Court sets the case for oral argument, or
requires the parties to submit memoranda, the case shall be deemed submitted for
decision upon the filing of the comments on the petition, or of such other pleadings as
may be required or allowed, or the expiration of the period to do so.

CERTIORARI/PROHIBITION/MANDAMUS
[RULE 65]

• Rule 65 provides for the following extraordinary remedies:

a. Certiorari (Section 1, Rule 65)
b. Prohibition (Section 2, Rule 65)
c. Mandamus (Section 3, Rule 65)
• Jurisdiction over certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under rule 65
1. Supreme Court (Section 5, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution; Section 1, Rule 56-A);
2. Court of Appeals (Section 9, B.P. Blg. 129);
3. Sandiganbayan (P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, R.A. No. 8249, and R.A. No.
10660);
4. Regional Trial Court (Sec. 21, B.P. Blg. 129); and
5. Shari’ah District Court (Art. 413 of P.D. No. 1083, otherwise known as The Code of Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines)
• With concurrent jurisdiction are the SC, CA, and RTC.
• If direct to SC, two scenarios:
a. The SC may entertained the case under Sec. 5 Article 7 and Section 1 of Rule 56-A
b. Or refer the case to the lower court (RTC or C.A)

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

A. Writ of Certiorari (Can only be initiated by petition)

Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Associations, Inc. vs. Energy Regulatory
Commission
G.R. No. 174697 [July 8, 2010]
SC: The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that the Court issues only
under closely defined grounds and procedures that litigants and their lawyers must
scrupulously observe. They cannot seek refuge under the umbrella of this remedy on the basis
of an undemonstrated claim that they raise issues of transcendental importance, while at the
same time flouting the basic ground rules for the remedy’s grant.
 B. Petition for Certiorari

Lopez Tan vs. Sps. Antazo

G.R. No. 187208 [February 23, 2011]
SC: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to
correction errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Requirements are alleged in and established by the petition.
 The requirements under the rule must be alleged and established under the petition.
• Two types of error that the court may commit:
a. Error of jurisdiction; (The proper remedy is petition of certiorari under Rule 65) and
b. Error of judgment. (The remedy is appeal)

C. History and Purpose of Certiorari

Sps. Humberto Delos Santos and Carmencita Delos Santos vs. Metropolitan
Bank and Trust Company
G.R. No. 153852 [October 24, 2012]
SC: In the common law, from which the remedy of certiorari evolved, the writ of
certiorari was issued out of Chancery, or the King’s Bench, commanding agents or officers of
the inferior courts to return the record of a cause pending before them, so as to give the party
more sure and speedy justice, for the writ would enable the superior court to determine from
an inspection of the record whether the inferior court’s judgment was rendered without
authority. The errors were of such a nature that, if allowed to stand, they would result in a
substantial injury to the petitioner to whom no other remedy was available. If the inferior
court acted without authority, the record was then revised and corrected in matters of law.
The writ of certiorari was limited to cases in which the inferior court was said to be
exceeding its jurisdiction or was not proceeding according to essential requirements of law
and would lie only to review judicial or quasi-judicial acts.

D. Nature of a Certiorari Proceeding

Winston F. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al

G.R. No. 169005 [January 28, 2013]
SC: A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. The special civil
action of certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct
errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions
of the lower court. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors
committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere
errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari.
A petition of review under Rule 43 is a type of appeal recognized or mention under the
Rules of Court.

Juliano-Llave vs. Republic

G.R. No. 169766 [March 30, 2011]
 SC: An application for certiorari is an independent action which is not part or a
continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of.

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

345 SCRA 63
SC: It is a remedy of last recourse and is a limited form of review. If there are others
available remedies, then certiorari does not lie.

Yasuda vs. Court of Appeals

330 SCRA 385 [2000]
SC: A petition for certiorari is not a mode of appeal where the appellate court reviews
errors of fact or law committed by the lower court. The issue in Rule 65 is whether or not the
lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

Republic vs. Villarama, Jr.

278 SCRA 736 [1997]
SC: This remedy is extraordinary and its use is restricted to truly extraordinary cases.

Sec. 1. Petition for Certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order
or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

• Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, is granted only under the conditions defined by
the Rules of Court. The conditions are that:
(1) The respondent tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions (if they are performing executive functions, certiorari does not lie) acted without or
in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction; and
(2) There is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. vs. Hon.
Teodoro Riel
G.R. No. 176508 [January 12, 2015]
SC: Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority;
there is excess of jurisdiction when the court transcends its power or acts without
any statutory authority; grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of
 jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

• Note: The person who can file a petition for certiorari must be a party to the main or
original action at the trial court.

Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles

G.R. No. 182645 [June 22, 2011]
SC: Thus, a person not a party to the proceedings in the trial court or in the CA cannot
maintain an action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the judgment reviewed. Stated
differently, if a petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not a party in the
lower court, he has no standing to question the assailed order.

• Rule 65 vs. rule 45

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), et al vs. City Advertising
Ventures Corporation
G.R. No. 182944 [November 9, 2016]
SC: A Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari) petition is an original action, independent of the
action from which the assailed ruling arose. A Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari or petition
for review on certiorari) petition, on the other hand, is a mode of appeal. As such, it is a
continuation of the case subject of the appeal. As it is a mere continuation, a Rule 45 petition
(apart from being limited to questions of law) cannot go beyond the issues that were subject
of the original action giving rise to it. Rule 45 petitions engendered by prior Rule 65 petitions
for certiorari and/or prohibition are, therefore, bound by the same basic issue at the crux of
the prior Rule 65 petition, that is, ‘issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.’ When
Rule 45 petitions are brought before the Supreme Court, they remain tethered to the ‘sole
office’ of the original action to which they owe their existence: ‘the correction of errors of
jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
If ma interchange nimo ang name sa Rule 45 v. Rule 65, it can be dismissed.

• The requirement of a cash or surety bond as provided under Article 223 of the Labor
Code only apply to appeals from the orders of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. It
does not apply to special civil actions such as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. In fact, nowhere under Rule 65 does it state that a bond is required for
the filing of the petition.
• As provided in Section 1, a writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.
• Q: What is Judicial Power?
A: It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government. ( Section 1, Second Par. of Art. VIII of the 1987
Constitution)
• Q: What is Quasi-Judicial Power?
A: It is the power of a quasi-judicial/administrative bodies to hear and decide cases falling
within its jurisdiction.
• When is a tribunal, board or officer considered to be exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions?
A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to
determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then
undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.
Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of
public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official
action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.

• An office performing executive functions not subject of certiorari.

Advocates for Truth in Lending, Inc., et al vs. Bangko Sentral Monetary Board, et al
G.R. No. 192986 [January 15, 2013]
SC: The Central Bank Monetary Board ( now BSP-MB) was created to perform executive
functions with respect to the establishment, operation or liquidation of banking and credit
institutions, and branches and agencies thereof. It does not perform judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. Certainly, the issuance of CB Circular No. 905 was done in the exercise of an
executive function. Certiorari will not lie in the instant case.

• An office performing executive functions not subject of certiorari.

Sps. Antonio and Fe Yusay vs. Court of Appeals, et al

G.R. No. 156684 [April 6, 2011]
SC: Based on the foregoing, certiorari did not lie against the Sangguniang Panglungsod, which
was not a part of the Judiciary settling an actual controversy involving legally demandable and
enforceable rights, but a legislative and policy-making body declaring its sentiment or opinion.

• Certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal.

Guerrero vs. Domingo

G.R. No. 156142 [March 23, 2011]
SC: Just as certiorari cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is
available but was lost through the fault or negligence of petitioner, prohibition should not lie
when petitioner could have resorted to other remedies that are now lost due to its own
neglect.

Ligaya Santos vs. Domingo I. Orda, Jr.

G.R. No. 189402 [May 6, 2010]
SC: It is elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute
for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as it was in this case. A special civil action
under Rule 65 cannot cure a party’s failure to timely appeal the assailed decision or resolution.
Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy
of an ordinary appeal.

• Exceptions to the rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. While there
exists a rule precluding certiorari as a remedy against the final order when appeal is available,
a petition for certiorari may be allowed when:
 1. The broader interest of justice demands that certiorari be given due course to avoid any
grossly unjust result that would otherwise befall the petitioners; and
2. The order of the RTC evidently constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.

Francisco Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

SC: The requirement that there must be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions, such as:
a. When it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party;
b. When the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment;
c. Where there may be danger of a failure of justice;
d. Where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient;
e. Where the issue raised is one purely of law;
f. Where public interest is involved; and
g. In case of urgency.

• Only errors of jurisdiction may be reviewed in a petition for certiorari.

Nemesio Goco, et al vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 157449 [April 6, 2010]
SC: Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over
the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is
not one of jurisdiction, but an error of law or fact - a mistake of judgment – appeal is
the remedy.

Mansion Printing Center and Clement Cheng vs. Diosdado Bitara, Jr.
G.R. No. 168120 [January 25, 2012]
SC: The raison d’etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed
while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is
committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction
and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. Hence, where the issue or question
involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision – not the jurisdiction of the
court to render said decision – the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for
certiorari.

• Distinction between without, excess, and grave abuse of discretion

1. “Without jurisdiction” – means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority
(Alafriz vs. Noble, 72 Phil. 278)
2. There is “excess of jurisdiction” when the court transcends its power or acts without any
statutory authority.
3. “Grave abuse of discretion” implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such
exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. ( Pure
Foods Corp. vs. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415)
• Excess of jurisdiction vs. absence of jurisdiction.

Winston F. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al

 G.R. No. 169005 [January 28, 2013]
SC: In a petition for certiorari, the public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does
not have the legal power to determine the case; there is excess of jurisdiction, where the
respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as
determined by law. There is grave abuse of discretion (Klaro kaau na naay abuse of
authority) where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic
manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.

• Cases of grave abuse of discretion

Miguel vs. JCT Group, Inc.

G.R. No. 157752 [March 16, 2005]
SC: The failure of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to express the factual and legal
bases for their decisions is an evasion of their constitutional duty, an evasion that constituted
grave abuse of discretion.

Meynardo Sabili vs. COMELEC, et al

G.R. No. 193261 [April 24, 2012]
SC: The use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is sufficient to
taint a decision-maker’s action with grave abuse of discretion.

 Order – not final ang remedy ky certiorari, judgment – final hence appeal ang remedy.
• Remedy in case of an interlocutory order is certiorari not appeal.

Priscilla Alma Jose vs. Ramon C. Javellana, et al

G.R. No. 158239 [January 25, 2012]
SC: The reason for disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory order is to avoid
multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which necessarily suspends the hearing and decision
on the merits of the action during the pendency of the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals
will necessarily delay the trial on the merits of the case for a considerable length of time, and
will compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may
interpose as many appeals as there are incidental questions raised by him and as there are
interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An interlocutory order may be
the subject of an appeal, but only after a judgment has been rendered, with the
ground for appealing the order being included in the appeal of the judgment itself.

RULE 45 VS. RULE 65

A continuation of the appellate 1 Is an independent action and

process over the original case. cannot be availed as a substitute
for the lost remedy of appeal.

A mode of appeal. 2 One of the requisites is that there is

no available appeal or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy.
 PETITION FOR PROHIBITION
[SECTION 2, RULE 65]
 Prohibition - is a special civil action against a tribunal, corporation, officer, or person
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial function which is alleged in a verified
petition filed by an aggrieved party to be acting or about to act without jurisdiction or in
excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, praying that judgment be rendered commanding
the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action or matter specified
therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
 Function of Prohibition
To prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a
fair and orderly administration of justice (Yusay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 6,
2011)
 When is the remedy of prohibition proper

Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. – When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or
matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.

The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the

judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

 Requisites for a petition for prohibition

1. It must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising functions,
judicial or ministerial;
2. The tribunal, corporation, board or person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion; and
3. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
 Matters to be alleged in a petition for prohibition
1. The facts with certainty;
 2. Praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceedings in the action or matter specified therein; or
3. Otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require;
4. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order
or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
thereto; and
5. A sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3,
Rule 46.
 General Rule: The filing of a motion for reconsideration is required before resorting to
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
Exceptions:
1. When only pure questions of law are raised; or
2. The questioned order is a patent nullity
 Prohibition vs. preliminary prohibitory injunction

Prohibition Injunction

It is directed against tribunal, Is generally directed against a party in

corporation, board, officer or person, the action.
whether exercising judicial or ministerial
functions

May be on the ground that the court Does not involve the jurisdiction of the
against whom the writ is sought acted court
without or in excess of jurisdiction

Is always a main action. Hence, for a May be the main action itself, or just a
temporary restraint in a proceeding for provisional remedy in the main action.
prohibition, preliminary injunction must
be sought therein

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS

 Mandamus – is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the

name of the state or sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some
corporation or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which
duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from
operation of law. It is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial
duty, which, as opposed to a discretionary one, is that which an officer or tribunal performs in
a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of his or its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety
of the act done.
 A key principle to be observed in dealing with petitions for mandamus is that such
extraordinary remedy lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in
nature, not those that are discretionary.

Special People, Inc. Foundation vs. Nestor M. Canda, et al

G.R. No. 160932 [January 14, 2013]
SC: A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given
state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the
act done. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of
official discretion or judgment.
Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee
G.R. No. 176831 [January 15, 2010]
SC: The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel
the performance of a public duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated
by the Constitution.

Sec. 3. Petition for Mandamus. – When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

 When petition for mandamus available

The remedy is available when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person:
1. Unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station; or
2. Unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office which such other
is entitled; and
3. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
 Exhaustion of administrative remedies necessary before availment of mandamus

Special People Foundation, Inc. vs. Nestor M. Canda, et al

G.R. No. 160932 [January 14, 2013]
SC: The issues that an administrative agency is authorized to decide should not be summarily
taken away from it and submitted to a court of law without first giving the agency the
 opportunity to dispose of the issues upon due deliberation. The court of law must allow the
administrative agency to carry out its functions and discharge its responsibilities within the
specialized areas of its competence.

 Mandamus is available in case of execution of final and executory judgment

FGU Insurance Corporation vs. RTC of Makati, Branch 66, et al

G.R. No. 161282 [February 23, 2011]
SC: A writ of mandamus lies to compel the judge to issue a writ of execution when the
judgment had already become final and executory and the prevailing party is entitled to the
same as a matter of right.

 When mandamus not proper

Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee
G.R. No. 176831 [January 15, 2010]
SC: The writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his
duty to do or which it is his duty not to do, or to give the applicant anything to which he is not
entitled by law. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or
as to which substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a mere technical question will
be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is meritorious.
Mandamus cannot also be used to enforce contractual obligations. Generally,
mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and will not lie against an
individual unless some obligation in the nature of a public or quasi-public duty is imposed.

 When mandamus not proper

Rogelio Laygo and Willie Laygo vs. Municipal Mayor of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya
G.R. No. 188448 [January 11, 2017]
SC: As a general rule, a writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of
discretion of a public officer since it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the
court. Courts will not interfere to modify, control or inquire into the exercise of this discretion
unless it be alleged and proven that there has been an abuse or an excess of authority on the
part of the officer concerned.

Arturo M. De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, et al

G.R. No. 191002 [March 17, 2010]
SC: Mandamus will not lie in case of premature acts. In this case, the JBC still has until May
17, 2010, at the latest, within which to submit the list of nominees to the President to fill the
vacancy created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno.

 When mandamus proper

Sps. Fernando and Angelina Edralin vs. Philippine Veterans Bank

G.R. No. 168523 [March 9, 2011]
 SC: Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the issuance of a writ of possession. The
purpose of mandamus is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. A ministerial act is
“one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or exercise of his own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.

 Mandamus vs. mandatory injunction

Mandamus Mandatory Injunction

Is an extraordinary remedy that can be Commands the performance of some

resorted only in case of extreme positive act to correct a wrong in the
necessity where the ordinary forms of past (Sps. Gonzalo T. Dela Rosa vs.
procedure are powerless to afford relief Heirs of Juan Valdez, G.R. No. 159101,
where there is no other clear, adequate July 27, 2011)
and speedy remedy. Before a writ may
be issued, it is obligatory upon the
petitioner to exhaust all remedies in the
ordinary course of law. He must show
that the duty sought to be performed
must be one which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office (Aquino vs. Mariano, 129 SCRA
532)

Is directed against a tribunal, board, Is generally directed against a party in

officer or person exercising ministerial the action.
functions.

May be on the ground that the court Does not involve the jurisdiction of the
against whom the writ is sought acted court, but rather the performance of an
without or in excess of jurisdiction and action enjoined by law as a duty.
unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins
as a duty being ministerial in nature.

 Certiorari vs. prohibition vs. mandamus

Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus

Is intended to correct Is intended to prevent Is intended to compel

an act performed by the the commission or the performance of an
respondents. carrying out of an act. act desired.

Extends only to Extends to both Extends to ministerial

 discretionary acts discretionary and acts only
ministerial acts

Shall lie only against a Shall lie against Shall lie against
respondent exercising respondents who respondents who
judicial or quasi-judicial exercise judicial and/or exercise judicial and/or
functions. non-judicial functions non-judicial functions

 Mandamus vs. continuing mandamus

Mandamus Continuing Mandamus

Is an extraordinary remedy that can be resorted Is a writ issued by a court in an environmental

only in case of extreme necessity where the
ordinary forms of procedure are powerless to
afford relief where there is no other clear,
adequate and speedy remedy. Before a writ
may be issued, it is obligatory upon the
petitioner to exhaust all remedies in the
ordinary course of law. He must show that the
duty sought to be performed must be one
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office (Aquino vs. Mariano,
129 SCRA 532)
case directing any agency or instrumentality of
the government or officer thereof to perform an
act or series of acts decreed by final judgment
which shall remain effective until judgment is
fully satisfied (Sec. 4, Rule 18, Part I, A.M. No.
09-6-8, Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases)

Petition for mandamus can be filed before the Petition for continuing mandamus can be filed
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and
Sandiganbayan, RTC. RTC.

Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. – The petition shall be filed not later than
sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the
petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial
of the motion.
If the petition relate to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a
corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by Supreme Court. It may also
be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is
in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or omission of a
quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall
be filed with and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
  When and where to file the petition [Section 4, Rule 65]

In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court,

the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 27, 2007)
General Rule as to period of filing: A Petition for Certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60)
days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.
Exceptions:
1. Most persuasive and weighty reasons
2. To relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure
3. Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the
time of default
4. The existence of special or compelling circumstances
5. The merits of the case
6. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules
7. A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory
8. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby
9. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault
10.Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case
11.In the name of substantial justice and fair play
12.Importance of the issues involved
13.Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances

 Q: Can the 60-day period be extended?

A: No.
 Where to file the petition?
1. If the petition relate to an act or omission of a MTC or of a corporation, a board, an officer
or a person, it shall be filed with the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area.
2. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not
the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction.
3. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the
Court of Appeals.
4. In election cases involving an act or omission of a MTC or RTC, the petition shall be filed
exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
 Rule: Although courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction, such concurrence does not give the
petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.

Constancio F. Mendoza and Sangguniang Brgy. of Balatasan, Bulalacao, Oriental

Mindoro
 G.R. No. 187256 [February 23, 2011]
SC: A direct invocation of the original jurisdiction to issue those writs should be allowed only
when there are special and important reasons therefore; clearly and specifically set out in the
petition.
 Under the material dates rule, a petition must allege three (3) material dates which
are necessary, to wit:
1. The date when the judgment or final order or resolution was received
2. The date when the motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed
3. The date when the notice of the denial thereof was received.
 Filing of a motion for reconsideration before the petition

Republic of the Philippines vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc.

G.R. No. 178593 [February 15, 2012]
SC: It must be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it on time
are not mere technicalities of procedure. These are jurisdictional and mandatory
requirements which must be strictly complied with. Thus, the failure to file a motion for
reconsideration with the NLRC before availing oneself of the special civil action for certiorari is
a fatal infirmity.

Tan vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 108634 [July 17, 1997]
SC: The reason is that motion for reconsideration will afford the respondent court an
opportunity to correct the errors imputed to it.

 Exceptions to the rule on the filing of a motion for reconsideration. The following
instances allows resort to the remedy of certiorari even without the required motion for
reconsideration:
1. Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction
2. Where the question raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
court
3. Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay
would prejudice the interest of the government or the petitioner or the subject of the
action is perishable
4. Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless
5. Where petitioner was deprived of due process, and there is extreme urgency for relief
6. Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such
relief by the trial court is improbable
7. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process
8. Where the proceeding were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object
9. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.

Sec. 5. Respondents and Costs in Certain Cases. – When the petition filed relates to
the acts or omission of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with
such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining
the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to
appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent
or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings
in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against
the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending,
the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or
any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public
respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise
specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings
therein.

Sec. 6. Order to Comment. – If the petition is sufficient in form and substance to

justify such process, the court shall issue an order requiring the respondent or
respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy
thereof. Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may
direct, together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the
provisions of Section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto, the
court may require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss,
the petition. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such other
responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper.
Sec. 7. Expediting Proceedings; Injunctive Relief. – The court in which the petition
is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of
the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with the cases.
The public respondent shall proceed with principal case within ten (10) days from
the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public
respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative
charge.
 Gen. Rule: The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case.
Exception: A TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction has been issued, enjoining the
public respondent from further proceeding with the cases.

De Leon vs. PEA

G.R. No. 181970 [August 3, 2010]
 SC: It is true that there are instances where, even if there is NO writ of preliminary injunction
or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court it would be proper for a lower court or
court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. The principle of
judicial courtesy, however, remains to be the exception rather than the rule.

Sec. 8. Proceeding After Comment is Filed. – After the comment or other pleadings required
by the court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the
case or require the parties to submit memoranda. If after such hearing or filing of
memoranda or upon the expiration of the period for filing, the court finds that the allegations
of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for such relief to which the petitioner is
entitled.
However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit
or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to
require consideration. In such event, the court may award in favor of the respondent treble
costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in addition to subjecting counsel to
administrative sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-B of the Rules of Court.
The court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary
sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for
certiorari.

Sec. 9. Service and Enforcement of Order or Judgment. – A certified copy of the judgment
rendered in accordance with the last preceding section shall be served upon the court, quasi-
judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person concerned in such manner as
the court may direct, and disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt. An execution
may issue for any damages or costs awarded in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 39.

 Cases where petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against an

interlocutory order are prohibited:
1. Forcible entry, unlawful detainer, and in all other claims (except probate proceedings), where
the claim exceeds one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) outside, and two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00) within Metro Manila. ( Sec. 19 [g], Rule on Summary
Proceedings)
2. Where the amount of the claim for payment of money or where the value of the claim does
not exceed two hundred thousand (P200,000.00) pesos. ( Sec. 14, A.M. No. 08-8-07, effective
October 27, 2008, as amended).
3.
QUO WARRANTO
[RULE 66]
 Quo Warranto – is a special civil action brought by means of a verified petition in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines against (a) a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully
holds or exercises a public office, position, or franchise; or (b) a public officer who does an act
which constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or (c) an association which acts as a
corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without authority so to
act.
 Sec. 1. Action by Government against Individuals. – An action for the usurpation of a public
office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines against:
1. A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or
franchise;
2. A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by provision of law, constitutes a ground for
the forfeiture of his office; or
3. An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

 A private person filing a petition for quo warranto must show clear right to the
contested office.

Hon. Philip A. Aguinaldo, et al vs. His Excellency President Benigno Simeon C.

Aquino III, et al
G.R. No. 224302 [November 29, 2016]
SC: For a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show a clear
right to the contested office. In fact, not even a mere preferential right to be appointed
thereto can lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.
Reynald F. Vilando vs. House of Representatives, et al
G.R. Nos. 192147 and 192149 [August 23, 2011]
SC: The HRET has jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions, specifically over cases
challenging ineligibility on the ground of lack of citizenship.

Sec. 2. When Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor Must Commence Action. – The Solicitor
General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon
complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding
section can be established by proof, must commence such action.
Sec. 3. When Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor may Commence with Permission of Court. –
The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court in which the
action is to be commenced, bring such an action at the request and upon the relation of another
person; but in which case the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the expenses
and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the court by the person
at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought.
Sec. 5. When an Individual may Commence such an Action. – A person claiming to be entitled to
a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action
therefore in his own name.
Sec. 6. Parties and Contents of Petition Against Usurpation. – When the action is against a person
for usurping a public office, position or franchise, the petition shall set forth the name of the
person who claims to be entitled thereto, if any, with an averment of his right to the same and
that the respondent is unlawfully in possession thereof. All persons who claim to be entitled to
the public office, position or franchise may be made parties, and their respective rights to such
public office, position or franchise determined, in the same action.
Sec. 7. Venue. – An action under the preceding six Sections can be brought only in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area where the respondent or any of the respondents resides, but when the Solicitor
General commences the action, it may be brought in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila,
in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme Court.

 Where and which court can a petition for usurpation be filed?

It can be brought in the following courts:
1. Supreme Court;
2. The Court of Appeals; or
3. In the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent or any of
the respondents resides.
 Venue of the action
1. Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila;
2. In the Court of Appeals; or
3. In the Supreme Court

Sec. 8. Period for Pleadings and Proceedings may be Reduced; Action Given Precedence. – The
court may reduce the period provided by these Rules for filing pleadings and for all other
proceedings in the action in order to secure the most expeditious determination of the matters
involved therein consistent with the rights of the parties. Such action may be given precedence
over any other civil matter pending in the court.
Sec. 9. Judgment Where Usurpation Found. – When the respondent is found guilty of usurping,
intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position, or franchise, judgment
shall be rendered that such respondent be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that
the petitioner or relator, as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment may be
rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of all
the parties to the action as justice requires.
Sec. 10. Rights of Persons Adjudged Entitled to Public Office, Delivery of Books and Papers;
Damages. – If judgment be rendered in favor of the person averred in the complaint to be
entitled to the public office he may, after taking the oath of office and executing any official bond
required by law, take upon himself the execution of the office, and may immediately thereafter
demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the respondent’s custody or control
appertaining to the office to which the judgment relates. If the respondent refuses or neglects to
deliver any book or paper pursuant to such demand, he may be punished for contempt as having
disobeyed a lawful order of the court. The person adjudged entitled to the office may also bring
action against the respondent to recover damages sustained by such person by reason of the
usurpation.
Sec. 11. Limitations. - Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action
against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced
within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office
or position, arose; nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the
next preceding section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the
judgment establishing the petitioner’s right to the office in question.
Sec. 12. Judgment for Cost. – In an action brought in accordance with the provisions of this Rule,
the court may render judgment for costs against either the petitioner, the relator, or the
respondent, or the person or persons claiming to be a corporation, or may apportion the costs, as
justice requires.

 Distinctions: quo warranto and election protest:

Quo Warranto Election Protest

The ground in QW is the disqualification The proper ground of an election protest

or ineligibility of the proclaimed candidate is irregularities in the conduct of an
election

If the respondent is found ineligible, the In EP, the protestant who prevails will
petitioner will not automatically assume assume the contested office provided he
the office but may only recover the costs had obtained the plurality of votes.
of suit, such respective right to the
position to be rendered only in a further
judgment.

 Distinctions: quo warranto action in elective and appointive office:

QW in Elective Office QW in Appointive Office

What is to be determined is the eligibility What is to be determined is the legality

of the candidate-elect. of the appointment.

When the candidate-elect is found to be The court determines who has been
ineligible, the court cannot declare that legally appointed and shall declare who
the candidate who obtained the second is entitled to occupy the office.
highest number of votes has been
 elected even if he were eligible.

 Distinctions: quo warranto and mandamus

Quo Warranto Mandamus

Is the remedy to test the title to one’s office Is the remedy to enforce clear legal duties
claimed by another and has as its object the and not to try disputed titles.
ouster of the holder from its enjoyment.

Where there is usurpation or intrusion into Where the respondent, without claiming any
an office, QW is the proper remedy. right to an office, excludes the petitioner
therefrom, the remedy is mandamus.

EXPROPRIATION
[RULE 67]
 Expropriation – refers to the exercise of the State’s right to eminent domain.
 Eminent Domain – is the power of the State to take private property for public use. It is an
inherent power of State as it is a power necessary for the State’s existence; as an inherent
power, it does not need at all to be embodied in the Constitution; if it is mentioned at all, it is
solely for the purposes of limiting what is otherwise an unlimited power. The limitation is
found in the Bill of Rights – that part of the Constitution whose provisions all aim at the
protection of individuals against the excessive exercise of governmental powers ( Republic of
the Philippines vs. Sps. Tan Song Bok, G.R. No. 191448, November 16, 2011)
 As expressly mentioned in Sec. 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, “No private
property shall be taken for public use without payment of just compensation.”
 Q: What is the meaning of “Compensable Taking?”
A: The taking of private property for public use, to be compensable, need not be an
actual physical taking or appropriation. Compensable taking includes destruction, restriction,
diminution, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and necessary use and
enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner, lessening or destroying its value. It is neither
necessary that the owner be wholly deprived of the use of his property, nor material whether
the property is removed from the possession of the owner, or in any respect changes hands.
(National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August 24,
2011)
 Rule: Expropriation must be for public use only.
 Q: What is the meaning of “public use?”
A: Public use has now acquired an expansive meaning to include any use that is of
“usefully, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of the general benefit of the public. If
the genuine public necessity – the very reason or condition as it were – allowing, at the first
instance, the expropriation of a private land ceases or disappears, then there is no more
cogent point for the government’s retention of the expropriated land. The same legal situation
should hold if the government devotes the property to another public use very much different
 from the original or deviates from the declared purpose to the benefit of another private
person.

Vda. de Ouano vs. Republic

G.R. No. 168770 [February 9, 2011]
SC: It has been said that the direct use by the state of its power to oblige landowners to
renounce their productive possession to another citizen, who will use it predominantly for
the citizen’s own private gain, is offensive to our laws.
The taking of a private land in expropriation proceedings is always conditioned in its continued
devotion to its public purpose. Once the purpose is terminated or peremptorily
abandoned, then the former owner, if he so desires, may seek its reversion subject of course
to the return at the very least of the just compensation received.

Vda. de Ouano vs. Republic

G.R. No. 168770 [February 9, 2011]
SC: In expropriation, the private owner is deprived of property against his will. Withal, the
mandatory requirement of due process ought to be strictly followed, such that the State must
show, at the minimum, a genuine need, an exacting public purpose to take private property,
the purpose to be specifically alleged or at least reasonably deductible from the complaint.

 Under Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over
complaint for expropriation since the subject matter of which is the right of the State to
expropriate a private property upon payment of just compensation which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
 Rule: Prohibition does not lie against expropriation.
Exception:
Sps. Antonio and Fe Yusay vs. CA and City Council of Mandaluyong
G.R. No. 156684 [April 6, 2011]
SC: Once the State decides to exercise its power of eminent domain, the power of judicial
review becomes limited in scope, and the courts will be left to determine the appropriate
amount of just compensation to be paid to the affected landowners. Only when the
landowners are not given their just compensation for the taking of their property of just
compensation may the remedy of prohibition become available.

Sec. 1. The Complaint. – The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of a
verified complaint which shall state with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation,
describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants all
persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof or interest therein,
showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of each defendant. If the title to any
property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, although
occupied by private individuals, or if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the
plaintiff cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to that
effect shall be made in the complaint.

Sec. 2. Entry of Plaintiff upon Depositing Value with Authorized Government Depositary. –
Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the
 defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real
property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount
equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such
bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof
the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the
Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the
amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to
forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved and promptly submit a
report thereof to the court with service of copies to the parties.

National Power Corporation vs. Socorro T. Posada, et al

G.R. No. 191945 [March 11, 2015]
SC: The first phase of expropriation commences with the filing of the complaint. It ends with
the order of the trial court to proceed with expropriation and determination of just
compensation. During the pendency of the complaint before the trial court, the state may
already enter and possess the property subject to the guidelines in Rule 67 of the Rules of
Court.

 Requisites of immediate entry in the premises subject of expropriation

Municipality of Cordova vs. Pathfinder Development Corporation, et al

G.R. 205544 [June 29, 2016]
SC: The requisites for authorizing immediate entry are the filing of a complaint for
expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and the deposit of the amount equivalent to
15% of the fair market value of the property to be expropriated based on its current tax
declaration. Upon compliance with these requirements, the petitioner in an expropriation
case is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and the issuance of the writ
becomes ministerial.

 Immediate payment of compensation to the landowner of 100% value of the

property based on zonal value in case of infrastructure project of government
Section 4 of R.A. 8974, unlike Rule 67, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, requires
immediate payment to the landowner 100% of the value of the property based on the current
relevant zonal valuation of the BIR. It is the BIR, not the court, which determines the zonal
value. The law also requires the immediate payment of the value of the improvements and/or
structures on the land before the trial court can issue the writ of possession.

Sec. 3. Defenses and Objections. – If a defendant has no objection or defense to the action or
the taking of his property, he may file and serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation to
that effect, specifically designating or identifying the property in which he claims to be
interested, within the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of
all proceedings affecting the same.
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or
any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within the
 time stated in the summons. The answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in
which he claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and
adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his property. No counterclaim, cross-
claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent
pleading.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the court, in the
interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten (10)
days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of the issue of just compensation, whether
or not a defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the
amount of the compensation to be paid for his property, and he may share in the distribution
of the award.

 Q: Can a counterclaim, cross claim or third-party complaint be filed in an action for

expropriation?
A: No, by express provision of Section 3 which states that, “ No counterclaim, cross-claim or
third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.”
 Q: What are the effects of failure of the defendant to raise defenses and
objections?
A: 1. A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged; and
2. The court may, in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be
made not later than 10 days from the filing thereof.
 Q: What are the remedies of the defendant as regards the issue of just
compensation?
A: 1. Present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his property; and
2. He may share in the distribution of the award.

Sec. 4. Order of Expropriation. – If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the
plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as
required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff
has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose
described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the
date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any
party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from determining
the just compensation to be paid.
After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or
discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable.

 Q: What is the remedy of the defendant in case of issuance of a final order of

expropriation?
A: A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any party
aggrieved thereby.
 Q: What are the orders or judgment which can be appealed in expropriation
proceedings?
A: 1. A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property
2. Order of determination of just compensation
 3. Judgment in expropriation proceeding
 Q: What is the effect of the filing of an appeal from the final order of
expropriation?
A: Such appeal shall NOT prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be
paid.
 Stages of expropriation proceedings. The exercise by the State of its inherent
power of eminent domain comes in two (2) stages:
1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent
domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the
suit.
- At this stage, the trial court resolves questions like whether the expropriator has the power
of eminent domain, whether the use of the property is public, whether the taking is necessary,
and, should there be conditions precedent for the exercise of the power, whether they have
been complied with.
2. Determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to
be taken.
- The trial court shall determine the just compensation.

 When just compensation to be ascertained

B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. vs. Court of Appeals
 G.R. No. 89980 [December 14, 1992]
SC: Just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually
coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of
the action precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of
the time of the filing of the complaint.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Vda. de Castellvi

157 Phil. 329
SC: When the taking of the property coincides with the commencement of the expropriation
proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the
just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.

 Judicial review of the exercise of the power of eminent domain is limited to the
following areas of concern:
1. The adequacy of the compensation
2. The necessity of the taking; and
3. The public use character of the purpose of the taking.
 Note: Expropriation proceedings for national infrastructure projects are governed
by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act 8974.
 RA 8974 is the Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right of Way, Site or Location for National
Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes.
 Sec. 5. Ascertainment of Compensation. – Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation,
the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as
commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property
sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall designate the time and place of the first
session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and specify the time within which their
report shall be submitted to the court.
Copies of the order shall be served on the parties. Objections to the appointment of
any of the commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten (10) days from service, and
shall be resolved within thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall have received copies
of the objections.

 Q: What is Just Compensation?

A: It is the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described as the price
fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and
competition, or the fair market value of the property as between the one who receives and the
one who desires to sell it, it being fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.
 The true measure of just compensation is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss.
 Rule: The imposition of interest on just compensation is illegal.
Exception: When there is delay on the part of the government for its payment.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Hernando T. Chico

G.R. No. 168453 [March 13, 2009]
SC: Interest on just compensation is assessed only in case of delay in payment thereof, a fact
which must be adequately proved.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Jesus Mupas

G.R. No. 181892 [April 19, 2016]
SC: Applying Section 10 of Rule 67, we held in our Decision that the condemnor incurs delay if
it does not pay the property owner the full amount of just compensation on the date of taking.

Sec. 6. Proceedings by Commissioners. – Before entering upon the performance of their

duties, the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform
their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings in
the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party before the commissioners who are
authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall, unless
the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties to attend, view and
examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the
same, after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The commissioners
shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from such
consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from the public
use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the
carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case
shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the
owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
 Sec. 7. Report by Commissioners and Judgment thereupon. – The court may order the
commissioners to report when any particular portion of the real estate shall have been passed
upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partial report, and direct the
commissioners to proceed with their work as to subsequent portions of the property sought to
be expropriated, and may from time to time to deal with such property. The commissioners
shall make a full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings, and such
proceedings shall not be effectual until the court shall have accepted their report and rendered
judgment in accordance with their recommendations. Except as otherwise expressly ordered
by the court, such report shall be filed within sixty (60) days from the date the commissioners
were notified of their appointment, which time may be extended in the discretion of the court.
Upon filing of such report, the clerk of the court shall serve copies thereof on all interested
parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days within which to file objections to the
findings of the report, if they so desire.

Sec. 8. Action upon Commissioner’s Report. – Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10)
days referred to in the preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but
after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their statement of
agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the report and render judgment in
accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may recommit the same to the commissioners
for further report of facts; or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or it
may accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make such order or render such
judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of
expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.

Sec. 9. Uncertain Ownership; Conflicting Claims. – If the ownership of the property taken is
uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or
sums awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the court for the benefit of the
person adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall
require the payment of the sum or sums awarded to either the defendant or the court before
the plaintiff can enter upon the property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has
already been made.

 Note: The court can entertain conflicting claims of ownership and declare the rightful owner.
Sec. 10. Rights of the Plaintiff After Judgment and Payment. – Upon payment by the plaintiff
to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest thereon from
the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender to him of the amount so fixed and
payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property expropriated
and appropriate it for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should
he have taken immediate possession thereof under the provisions of section 2 hereof. If the
defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court, or decline to receive the amount
tendered, the same shall be ordered to be deposited in court and such deposit shall have the
same effect as actual payment thereof to the defendant or the person ultimately adjudged
entitled thereto.
 Sec. 11. Entry not delayed by Appeal; Effect of Reversal. - The right of the plaintiff to enter
upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the same for public use or purpose shall
not be delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate court determines that
plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial
Court to forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the possession of the property,
and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of
the possession taken by the plaintiff.
 Note: The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate
the same to public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from judgment.
National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Antonia Rabie
G.R. No. 210218 [August 17, 2016]
SC: The Court rules that discretionary execution of judgments pending appeal under
Section 2 (a) of Rule 39 does not apply to eminent domain proceedings. The trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order granting execution pending appeal.

Sec. 12. Costs, by whom paid. – The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as part of the
costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, shall
be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of the property and the
judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of the appeal shall be paid by the owner.

Sec. 13. Recording Judgment and its Effect. – The judgment entered in expropriation
proceedings shall state definitely, by an adequate description, the particular property or
interest therein expropriated, and the nature of the public use or purpose for which it is
expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a certified copy of such judgment shall be
recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated, and its effect
shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so described for such public use or
purpose.
 Power of the local government to expropriate
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the government,
which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other public entities and public utilities. An
LGU may therefore exercise the power to expropriate private property only when
authorized by Congress and subject to the latter’s control and restraints. The following
essential requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the
benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is a payment of just compensation.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to
be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted (Sps. Antonio and Fe Yusay vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No. 156684 (April 6, 2011)