CHAPTER 45 ACTION BY THE COURT

INTERPLEADER
1. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order

 Interpleader – is a special civil action filed by a party against Filing of Complaint -> Court to issue an
whom two (2) or more conflicting claims are made upon the Order -> Summons issued and served
same subject matter and over which, such party claims no
interest whatever, or if he or she has interest therein, it is one
requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one
which is not disputed by the claimants in whole or in part.
another.
 An action for interpleader must refer to:
 If interests of justice require, the court may direct in
1. conflicting claims over the same subject matter and
such order that the subject matter be paid or
2. the claim shall be against the same party.
delivered to the court.
 Where the conflicting claims over the same subject matter are
2. Summons shall likewise be issued and served upon the
claims by a claimant against the other claimant and not against
conflicting claimants, together with a copy of the complaint and
the plaintiff, then interpleader will not be applicable.
order.

PURPOSE OF INTERPLEADER
DEPOSIT
 The action for interpleader is brought against the claimants to
 The essence of an interpleader, aside from the disavowal of
compel them to interplead and litigate their claims among
interest in the property in litigation on the part of the
themselves.
petitioner, is the deposit of the property or funds in
 Since the party against whom the conflicting interests is faced
controversy with the court.
with the problem of determining who among the conflicting
 It is a rule founded on justice and equity that the petitioner may
claimants has the legal right to receive the property or who is
not continue to benefit from the property or funds in litigation
entitled to the performance of an obligation, he or she may
during the pendency of the suit at the expense of whoever will
institute the action for interpleader to ask the court that he or
ultimately be decided as entitled thereto.
she may be relieved from the suit and any liability arising from
 Thus, the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the
the subject matter of the interpleader and let the conflicting
fund subject of the litigation despite order from the court to
parties to litigate between themselves.
have the same deposited in the bank approved for the purpose
 Illustration (Ocampo vs. Tirana):
would be tantamount to forbearance of money thereby making
 the lessee was faced with a situation placing him in doubt
such petitioner liable for interest thereon.
as to who of the conflicting claimants has the right to
receive the rental.
ANSWER
 An action for interpleader is commenced in order for the
 The conflicting claimants shall file their respective answers
plaintiff to effectively extinguish his or her obligation by paying
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the summons. Such
or performing the obligation due from him or her to the right
answers shall set forth their respective claims and furnish the
claimant. This is because payment or performance of an
conflicting claimant with a copy thereof.
obligation to the wrong claimant will not result as valid
 Reply thereto may be filed in the same manner as provided
payment or extinguish his or her obligation to the rightful one.
under the Rules in ordinary civil actions. The filing thereof,
however, is subject to the provisions of the Rules allowing it as
discussed in earlier topics.
JURISDICTION
 Where a motion to dismiss is filed, the period to file the answer
 Jurisdiction over an action for interpleader is determined by the
is tolled.
subject matter of the claim.
o In the event that the same is denied, the movant may
1. If the claim involves personal property or the collection of
file his or her answer within the remaining period to
a particular sum, the value of the claim shall determine
which he or she is entitled to be reckoned from notice
which court has jurisdiction.
of the denial of the motion, but which period shall not
2. Where the subject matter involves real property, then the
be less than five (5) days.
assessed value thereof shall be the basis of the court's
jurisdiction, except for unlawful detainer and forcible entry
OTHER PLEADINGS
cases.
The parties in an interpleader action may also file:
 Claim which involves the performance of an obligation the
1. counterclaims,
nature of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
2. cross-claims,
jurisdiction over the action shall be with the Regional Trial
3. third-party complaints and
Court.
4. responsive pleadings thereto,
as provided by the Rules.

1 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
DEFAULT
 A claimant may be declared in default for his or her failure to
file the answer within the prescribed period. The motion to
declare such claimant in default should be filed by the other
claimant.
o The purpose of the interpleader is to compel the
conflicting claimants to litigate between them. Thus,
the judgment that may be rendered in the action shall
be in favor or against them.
o The petitioner in interpleader has no interest in the
subject matter and the action is not intended to
enforce or protect his or her right. Hence, the
petitioner is not expected to file such motion.
 The Rule also expressly provided that the declaration of default
must be upon motion. Hence, the court cannot make such
declaration of default motu proprio.
 When a claimant is declared in default, judgment shall be POTA
SIJrendered barring him or her from any claim in respect to the
subject matter.
MOTION TO DISMISS
 Each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of:
1. impropriety of the interpleader action or
a judicial fiat to METROCAN, there was no more reason to continue with
the interpleader case.
It should be remembered that an action of interpleader is afforded to
protect a person not against double liability but against double vexation
in respect of one (1) liability. It requires, as an indispensable requisite,
that conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be
made against the plaintiff-in-interpleader who claims no interest
whatever in the subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part
is not disputed by the claimants.
The decision in the unlawful detainer case resolved the conflicting claims
insofar as payment of rentals was concerned.
JUDGMENT
After the pleadings have been filed and pre-trial has been
conducted, the court shall proceed to determine the respective
rights of the conflicting claimants and adjudicate their claims.
FEES
The docket and other lawful fees paid by the party who filed the
complaint, 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.

There is impropriety of the action if it does not satisfy the

requirements of an interpleader.

 Examples of these are when the claims are not

conflicting or that they do not involve the same
subject matter.

 The action may also be dismissed on this ground if

the claims are not directed against the same person
or party.

2. on other appropriate grounds under Rule 15.

 Such motion must be filed within the period to file the answer.

RCBC vs. Metro Container Corp.

In this case, LEYCON contracted a loan from RCBC which was secured by a
real estate mortgage over a property which the former leases to
METROCAN. For failure of LEYCON to settle its obligation, RCBC
extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged property. Thereafter, for failure
of LEYCON to redeem the property within the prescribed period, RCBC
consolidated its title over the same.

On the other hand, LEYCON filed an action for unlawful detainer against
METROCAN. To this, METROCAN filed an action for interpleader for the
court to determine who among between LEYCON and RCBC shall rightfully
receive the payment of monthly rentals on the subject property.
Eventually, judgment was rendered in the action for unlawful detainer
ordering METROCAN to pay LEYCON whatever rental is due on the subject
premises which became final and executory.

The Supreme Court held that the reason for the interpleader action
ceased when judgment was rendered in the unlawful detainer case
ordering that whatever rental due on the subject premises be paid to
LEYCON.

According to it, while RCBC, not being a party to such case, could not be
bound by said judgment, METROCAN is bound thereby. When the
decision became final and executory, METROCAN has no other alternative
left but to pay the rentals to LEYCON. Precisely because there was already

2 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 Chapter 46
DECLARATORY RELIEF
Declaratory relief – is an action by any person whose right is
affected by a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
executive order or resolution, ordinance or any other governmental
regulation.
The relief sought under this Rule also include other remedies similar
to a declaratory relief, such as:
1. an action for reformation of an instrument under
Articles 1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code;
2. an action to quiet title to real property or remove
clouds therefrom under Articles 476 to 481 of the
Civil Code;
3. an action to consolidate ownership under Article 1607
of the Civil Code.
REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT VS. REFORMATION OF CONTRACT
 Note that reformation of instrument is not similar to the
reformation of contract.
 Under this Rule, the instrument which is the evidence of the
contract is the one being reformed so that it may reflect the
true intentions of the parties as they agreed upon.
o The defect does not lie in the consent or the validity
of the agreement itself but only on the instrument
that is supposed to embody their agreement.
o Where the defect is about the consent of a party
which was obtained by fraud, the proper remedy is to
file an action for annulment of that contract.
PURPOSE
 The purpose of this remedy is to determine any question of
construction or validity arising from a deed, will, contract or
other written instrument, executive order or resolution,
ordinance, or any other governmental regulation, and for the
declaration of rights or duties thereunder.
o Thus, the only question that may be raised in the
petition is the construction or the validity of the
provisions in the instrument or statute. It must also
be shown that there are no other adequate relief or
remedy available under the circumstances.
 If the action would be determinative of the issues rather than a
construction of definite rights, status or duties, the case is not
one for declaratory relief.
Parties
 Any person:
o interested under a deed, will, contract or other
written instrument, or
o whose rights are affected by a statute, executive
order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation
may bring the action.
 All persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by the declaration shall be made parties to the action.
o Persons who are not made parties to the action shall
not be prejudiced by the declaration, except as
otherwise provided in the Rules.
WHEN COMMENCED
 The action must be commenced before violation or breach of
the deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive
order or resolution, ordinance or any other governmental
regulation.
o For actions involving the validity of a statute,
executive order or regulation, or any other
governmental regulation: the Office of the Solicitor
General shall be notified by the party assailing the
same and shall be entitled to be heard upon such
question.
o For action involving the validity of a local government
ordinance: the prosecutor or the attorney of the Local
Government Unit involved shall be notified and shall
be entitled to be heard thereon.
 If alleged to be unconstitutional, the Office
of the Solicitor General shall also be notified
and heard.
COURT’S JURISDICTION
Actions for declaratory relief as defined under the first paragraph of
Section 1 of the Rule is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court and not with the Supreme Court.
Malana, etal. vs. Tappa, et al.
In this case, actions for reivindicacion and quieting of title were filed
before the Regional Trial Court to remove the cloud created upon the
plaintiff's title to the subject property. However, considering that it is a
real action, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the action for lack of
jurisdiction since the assessed value of said real property is below the
threshold amount to fall within its jurisdiction.
In justifying the dismissal thereof, the Regional Trial Court posited that it
has jurisdiction over actions for declaratory relief as referred to under the
first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63. However, since the action to quiet
title to real property is under the second paragraph thereof, jurisdiction
over which must be determined by considering the provisions of R.A. No.
7691. Being a real action and since the assessed value of the property is
less than which is required to fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court, the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
In its decision sustaining the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the action,
the Supreme Court explained that:
“To determine which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in
the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said
provision must be read together with those of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended.
It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does
not categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed before the
RTC. It repeatedly uses the word “may" – that an action for quieting of
title “may be brought under [the] Rule” on petitions for declaratory
relief, and a person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief “may
x x x bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court.” The use of
the word “may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely
permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.
In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980, as amended, uses the word “shall" and explicitly requires the
MTC to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which
involve title to or possession of real property where the assessed value
does not exceed P20,000.00 x x x."
3 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 It likewise added that if the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an
action, it may dismiss the same ex mero motu or motu proprio.
However, in the later case of Sps. Sabitsana vs. Muertegui, the Supreme
Court made a clear pronouncement that an action for quieting of title
may be instituted in the Regional Trial Court regardless of the assessed
value of the real property in dispute.
Due to this recent ruling, there seems to be conflicting pronouncements
by the Supreme Court in the two (2) cases. Following the basic principle
embodied in the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere,
adherence to judicial precedents is enjoined. Thus, decisions of the
Supreme Court become judicial precedents and must be followed by all
courts in subsequent cases.
There is nothing in Sps. Sabitsana which expressly pronounced that the
doctrine in Tappa has been abandoned. It bears to emphasize that the
case of Sps. Sabitsana was rendered by only a division of the Supreme
Court (Second Division). As enshrined under the Constitution (Section
4(3), Article VIII), no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed except by the Supreme Court sitting en banc. Hence,
it would be an error to consider that the doctrine in Sps. Sabitsana
abandoned the one laid down in Tappa. Instead, they should be
harmonized in order to give effect to both rulings.
Harmonizing the Tappa and Sps. Sabitsana rulings
In Tappa, the action is for quieting of title which involves title
to or possession of a real property. Thus, the assessed value of said
property was considered in determining which court has jurisdiction.
2. When the legal question is of great importance to the
public such as the imposition of VAT by the BIR, the
petition was treated as one for prohibition.
ACTION BY THE COURT (lol more like when not to take action)
 For actions seeking declaratory relief, the court may, motu
proprio or upon motion, refuse to exercise its power to make a
declaration or construction when the same will not terminate
the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action or
when it is not necessary and proper under the circumstances.
o Thus, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion,
dismiss the case outright if it finds that:
1. the action will not terminate the
uncertainty or controversy; or
2. the action will not resolve or clarify such
uncertainty or controversy.
o However, the court cannot exercise such discretion if
the action involves 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.
 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 governmental regulation should take place,
the action may be converted into an ordinary action.

In the Sps. Sabitsana case, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the
action may be filed in the Regional Trial Court regardless of the assessed
value of the real property.
To harmonize this pronouncement with Tappa, the later ruling should be
read and understood by taking into consideration the reason behind it.
Thus, the Supreme Court explained in Sps. Sabitsana that:
“It must be remembered that the suit for quieting of title was prompted
by petitioners’ August 24, 1998 letter-opposition to respondent’s
application for registration. Thus, in order to prevent a cloud from being
cast upon his application for a title, respondent filed Civil Case No. B-
1097 to obtain a declaration of his rights. In this sense, the action is one
for declaratory relief, which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the
RTC pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules.”
It is now evident from this that the Supreme Court evaluated the action in
Sps. Sabitsana to be one for declaratory relief falling under the first
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63. Hence, jurisdiction over the same falls
within the Regional Trial Court, regardless of the assessed value of the
property involved.
CASES NOT PROPER FOR AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF:
1. to ask the court to declare his or her filiation and hereditary
rights which was held to be not based on a deed or will.
2. to seek declaration of citizenship to correct a previous
unilateral registration as an alien was held improper for not
being based on a deed, contract or any ordinance.
3. to resolve political issues that can be resolved through an
ordinary civil action;
4. when the right, contract or statute has already been breached
or violated.
5. Thus, 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 governmental regulation should
take place, the action may be converted into an ordinary action.
The proper remedy to be enlightened as to the true import of a
judgment should be a motion for clarificatory judgment.

It can now be deduced that the apparent difference in the rulings in the
two (2) (cases) was brought about by the substantial dissimilarity in the
factual circumstances therein, that is, in Tappa, the action for quieting of
title involves title to or possession of the subject real property while in
Sps. Sabitsana, the petitioner specifically prayed for a declaration of
rights.

Exceptions
 GENERAL RULE: Jurisdiction over actions commenced under this
Rule may fall either in the Municipal Trial Court or the Regional
Trial Court as discussed earlier but never in the Supreme Court.
 EXCEPTIONS: However, in some rare cases, the Supreme Court
made exceptions to this rule.
1. Where the petition has far-reaching implications and
raises questions that should be resolved, it was
treated by the Supreme Court as one for mandamus.

4 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 Chapter 47
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS
OF THE COMELEC & THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
 Review of judgments, final orders or resolutions of the
Commission of Elections or of the Commission on Audit may be
brought to the Supreme Court by way of petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 in relation with the provisions of Rule 64.
o The review by the Supreme Court of the judgments,
final orders or resolutions of the Commission of
Elections contemplated under Rule 64 refers to those
rendered by the Commission on Elections en banc and
not by a division thereof.
 The decisions, orders or resolutions of a
division of the Commission on Election must
be reviewed by the COMELEC en banc
through a motion for reconsideration
before the final en banc decision may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
 The pre-requisite filing of a motion for
reconsideration is mandatory since the rule
requires that there be no appeal, or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
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 for the filing of such petition.
o If the motion is eventually denied, the aggrieved party
may file the petition within the remaining period
reckoned from notice of denial. Such period shall not
be less than five (5) days in any event.
o Notably, the fresh 15-day period rule does not apply
under this remedy.
 The petition must be verified and the appropriate docket and
other lawful fees must be paid to the clerk of court.
o It must state the facts with certainty, present clearly
the issues involved, set forth the grounds and brief
arguments relied upon for review.
o It shall also contain a sworn certification against
forum shopping.
PRAYER
The verified petition shall pray for judgment annulling or modifying
the questioned judgment, final order or resolution.
GROUND
 The ground upon which the petition should be filed is only for
grave abuse of discretion. Such abuse of discretion must be
grave and not merely ordinary.
 The petition should never be based on questions of facts since
this mode of review is not to correct the findings of the
commission but to determine whether it committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of its
jurisdiction.
o Thus, the remedy is limited only to errors of jurisdiction
caused by grave abuse of discretion.
o To this, the simple errors of judgment of the commission
cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court unless the same
are tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
 Grave abuse of discretion:
1. implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction
or,
2. (in other words), the exercise of the power in an
arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice,
or personal hostility; and
3. it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal
to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
 Even if the petition did not expressly use the technical terms
"grave abuse of discretion" and "errors of jurisdiction," the
Supreme Court still did not cause the outright dismissal of the
case since it was shown therein that the petitioner claims that
the Commission on Audit did not give him the chance to explain
his side. If this was true, according to the Supreme Court, the
act of the commission would be characterized as grave abuse of
discretion. Thus, it found more appropriate to require the
Commission on Audit to comment rather than to summarily
deny the petition.
o If a person has not been given the opportunity to squarely
and intelligently answer the accusations or rebut the
evidence presented against him or her, or raise
substantive defenses through the proper pleadings before
a quasi-judicial body like the Commission on Audit where
he or she stands charged, then a due process problem
exists. This problem worsens and the denial of his or her
most basic right continues if, in the first place, he or she is
found liable without having been charged and this finding
is confirmed in the appeal or reconsideration process
without allowing him or her to rebut or explain his or her
side on such finding.
o While the Supreme Court have ruled in the past that the
filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect in
procedural due process because the process of
reconsideration is itself an opportunity to be heard, such
ruling does not embody an absolute rule that applies in all
circumstances. The mere filing of a motion for
reconsideration cannot cure the due process defect,
especially if the motion was filed precisely to raise the
issue of violation of the right to due process and the lack of
opportunity to be heard on the merits remained.
PARTIES
The petition shall:
 name the aggrieved party as petitioner and
 join as respondents the Commission concerned and the person
or persons interested in sustaining the judgment, final order or
resolution a quo.
5 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
ACTION BY THE COURT

 The verified petition shall be filed before the Supreme Court.

Court: Supreme Court

Petitioner files verified petition -> *SC ORDER TO FILE

COMMENT/DISMISSAL/SET FOR ORAL ARGUMENT/REQUIRE
PARTIES TO SUBMIT MEMORANDA

*if SC ORDERED RESPONDENTS TO FILE COMMENTS OR

PLEADINGS -> SUBMIT FOR RESOLUTION

o 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.
o Otherwise, the Supreme Court may dismiss the petition
outright.
 The Supreme Court may also dismiss the petition
if it was filed manifestly for delay or the
questions raised are too unsubstantial to
warrant further proceedings.
 No other pleading may be filed by any party unless required or
allowed by the Supreme Court.
 The Supreme Court may also opt to set the case for oral
arguments or require the parties to submit memoranda.
o Otherwise, the case shall be submitted for resolution upon
the submission of the required comments or pleadings.

EFFECT OF FILING
 The filing of the 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.
o Thus, to stay the execution thereof, an injunctive
relief must be prayed for in the petition and granted
by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT
 In resolving the case, the Supreme Court shall only resolve the
issues of law.
 The findings of facts of the Commission which are supported by
substantial evidence shall be final and shall not be reviewed.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

The provisions of Rule 64 are not applicable as remedy against the
decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission.
The proper remedy against the same lies under Rule 43 (RULE 43
APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND
QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS).

6 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 Chapter 48
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS
CERTIORARI
What is this certiorari under Rule 65?
 Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a mode of appeal. – it is an
original action invoking the original jurisdiction of a court.
 An appeal by certiorari is that which is contemplated under
Rule 45.
Purpose
 A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not anchored on pure
questions of law.
 It is filed to invoke the original jurisdiction of a proper court to
annul or modify the proceedings of a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. s
 It is based on the action made:
o without or in excess of jurisdiction or
o with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or
in excess of jurisdiction.
 It can be availed of if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to
the aggrieved party.
 This special civil action is an extraordinary remedy and it is
proper only when there is neither appeal, nor plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (ULIT
ULIT??)
When can’t it be used?
 This extraordinary remedy is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
o It is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a
judgment to the proper forum, especially if one's own
negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned
such lose or lapse.
 This remedy cannot also be availed of when the error
committed is factual.
o An example of a factual error is when the lower court
committed an error in the appreciation of the facts or
evidence presented. In such case, the proper remedy is to
appeal the erroneous judgment.
o Where the petition is based on factual issues, the action
may be dismissed outright. This is due to the fact that this
remedy is not intended to reverse a ruling or judgment but
to annul it for want of jurisdiction.
PETITION
 The verified petition shall be filed in the proper court within
sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution
sought to be assailed and must contain a certification of non-
forum shopping.
 If a motion for reconsideration is filed, the sixty (60)-day period
shall be counted from notice of the denial thereof. This is true
whether such motion is required or not.
 No extension of time to file the petition shall be allowed.
o The old provision of the Rules allowing such extension
for compelling reason had been deleted by A.M. No.
07-7-12-SC. However, in Central Bicol State University
vs. Camarines Sur, the Supreme Court has laid down
certain exceptions to the strict observance of the sixty
(60)-day rule, to wit:
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. lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory;
8. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced;
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; and
13. exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided
by all the attendant circumstances.
PARTIES
 When the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a judge,
court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person, the petitioner shall join them as public respondents
and the person or persons interested in sustaining the
proceedings in the court as private respondent or respondents.
o It shall be the duty of such private respondents to
appear and defend, both in his or her own behalf and
in behalf of the public respondent or respondents
affected by the proceedings.
 In petitions for certiorari against a ruling or judgments of
acquittal in criminal proceedings, the People is ordinarily
represented in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court by
the Office of the Solicitor General.
o However, the Supreme Court has allowed private
parties to file such petitions for certiorari (or
prohibition) holding that being the offended parties,
they have sufficient interest and personality as
"persons aggrieved" to file the special civil action.
PRAYER
The petition shall pray that judgment be rendered:
o annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and
o granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
ISSUE
In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the issue is jurisdiction,
hence, it may be directed against an interlocutory order of the lower
court prior to an appeal from the judgment or where there is no
appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy available.
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
7 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s

 For grave abuse of discretion to be used as ground in actions for
certiorari, it must be:
a) a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as would
be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or
b) an exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount
to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined; or
c) an exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility; or
d) an act in a manner not at all in contemplation of law.
 Since certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, it is a basic
prerequisite to allege the acts constituting this grave abuse of
discretion purportedly committed by the public respondent.
o This is so because such remedy does not include an
inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of the
evidence or any error of judgment.
o Failure to allege such abusive acts will make the
petition fall outside the realm of certiorari.
 The Supreme Court further said that the term grave abuse of
discretion has, ironically, fallen victim to procedural abuse. As a
last-ditch remedy to turn the odds to their favor, vengeful
litigants resort to indiscriminate imputation of this term to the
public officer that issued a verdict adverse to them, in manifest
indifference to the soundness of its exercise or the frailty of
their cause. According to it. Rules must not be stretched for
personal retribution, or even if such purpose be pursued, it
must have a solid grounding in fact and law.
o It is not enough to allege that grave abuse of
discretion was committed by the public respondent.
The pleading must also state the acts constituting the
same.
o Thus, it was held that the Ombudsman did not
commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed
the case for violation of R.A. No. 3019 for lack of
jurisdiction on the basis that the case was founded on
the issue of who between the parties has a valid title
on the real property involved. In its disquisition, the
Ombudsman based its ruling on the fact that it cannot
arrive at the conclusion if the complainant suffered
injury when it cannot determine the issue of
ownership of the property which it has no authority
or jurisdiction to adjudicate.
 As discussed earlier, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is
not a substitute to a lost appeal. It is not allowed when a party
to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum,
especially of one's own negligence or error in choosing the
proper remedy.
o The remedy of appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive.
o The remedy of certiorari will not prosper if appeal is
an available remedy to a litigant, even if the ground is
grave abuse of discretion.
 Thus, where a party fails to take an appeal
from a judgment, he or she cannot avail of
the remedy of certiorari even if his or her
ground therefor is grave abuse of
discretion.
CONDITION PRECEDENT
 Generally, a motion for reconsideration is required before a
petition for certiorari may be filed.
o The filing of such motion is inherently required in
actions for certiorari which is a tangible
representation of the opportunity given to the public
respondent to correct itself.
o Unless it is filed, there could be no occasion to rectify
making the remedy of certiorari unavailing. This is
because the filing of such motion is a remedy which is
a plain, speedy, adequate and readily available to the
aggrieved party.
 It must be noted that it is a requirement in
certiorari under Rule 65 that there is no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy available
so that such original action may be
instituted.
 The abuse of discretion must be grave and not merely simple.
WHERE FILED (Section 4, Rule 65)
 Where the petition relates to the acts or omissions of the
Municipal Trial Court or of a corporation, board, officer or
person, the same should be filed before the Regional Trial
Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area. The
Regional Trial Court exercises this jurisdiction concurrently with
the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Appeals.
o The petition may be filed in the Court of Appeals
whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
 However, if it involves acts or omissions of
a quasi-judicial agency, the petition is
cognizable only by the Court of Appeals,
unless otherwise provided by law or by the
rules.
o The petition may only be filed in the Sandiganbayan if
it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (the rule says
whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction)
 When may a petition for certiorari be directly filed with the
Supreme Court?
o Only when absolutely necessary or when serious and
important reasons exist to justify an exception to the
policy that a petition for certiorari may be filed with
the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the principle of
hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed.
o 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 the petition (not a motion to
dismiss).
 Thereafter, the court may require the filing
of a reply and such other responsive or
other pleadings as it may deem necessary
and proper.
8 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
ACTION BY THE COURT
 If the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify such
Petition -> Issue Order requiring respondent(s) to
Comment -> Hearing/Submission of Memoranda-
>Judgement (Relief/Dismissal)
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.
o 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.
 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 submission of memoranda or the
expiration of the period for the filing thereof, the court finds
that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render
judgment for the relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is
entitled.
o The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it
finds the same to be
1. patently without merit,
2. prosecuted manifestly for delay, or
3. that the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 The court in which the petition is filed:
o may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and
o 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 against the public respondent from
further proceeding in the case.
JUDGMENT
The costs which may be 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.
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 Rule 39.
APPEAL FROM AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT IN A CASE FOR CERTIORARI
 An adverse judgment rendered in an action, for certiorari is
appealable.
 Being an original action, the mode of appeal that may be taken
therefrom depends upon which court rendered the decision
and the issues that may be raised therein. Hence, such appeal
shall be governed by the rules applicable to appeals.
 Other Mode of Review
o The review of such adverse judgment may also be
made through an action for certiorari under the same
Rule when it was rendered with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of
jurisdiction. However, such review shall be limited
only to the errors of jurisdiction.
PUBLIC RESPONDENTS AS NOMINAL PARTIES
 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.
SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS
 The filing of the petition will not stay or suspend the
proceedings of the lower court, body or tribunal unless it is
prevented from proceeding by a temporary restraining order or
a writ of preliminary injunction. Judicial courtesy cannot be
simply used as an excuse to suspend the proceedings.
o Judicial courtesy is exercised by lower courts by
suspending its proceedings although there is no
injunction or an order from a higher court. The
purpose is to avoid mooting the matter raised in the
higher court. It is exercised as a matter of respect and
for practical considerations.
o However, this principle applies only if the
continuation of the lower court's proceedings will
render moot the issue raised in the higher court.
 The Supreme Court has expressly delimited the application of
judicial courtesy to maintain the efficacy of Section 7, Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
o It held that the principle of judicial courtesy applies
only "if there is a strong probability that the issues
before the higher court would be rendered moot and
moribund as a result of the continuation of the
proceedings in the lower court."
o It clarified that the principle of judicial courtesy
remains to be the exception rather than the rule.
 As explained in the case of Go-Yu vs. Yu: a petition for certiorari
pending before a higher court is an original action independent
from the principal action. It does not necessarily become moot
and academic by a continuation of the proceedings in the court
of origin. The mere fact that the lower court continued to
proceed with the case before it, such continuation does not
necessarily render the special civil action for certiorari mooted.
9 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
WHEN NOT AVAILABLE
 This remedy is, however, not available against:
1. the interlocutory order in a petition for a writ of amparo
(Sec. 11[1], Rule on Writ of Amparo),
2. petition for a writ of habeas data (Sec. 13[1], Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data),
3. small claims cases (Sec. 14[g] of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) and
4. cases governed by the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure (Sec. 19g, RRSP).
 The remedies of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus are
likewise not available against the order of the court denying a
demurrer to evidence for being prohibited under Section 2,
Rule 33.
 Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction. It is not intended to correct errors of judgment.
o When an error is committed while the court engages in the
exercises of its jurisdiction, such error does not deprive it
of the jurisdiction it exercised. Otherwise, every error
committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction
and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment.
o The Supreme Court made a pronouncement that this
cannot be allowed because administration of justice would
not survive such rule. Thus, it ruled that an error of
judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction is not correctible through the original civil
action of certiorari. 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.
PROHIBITION
 A petition for prohibition – is a remedy taken when the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions, are:
o without or in Egutom naxcess of its or his or her
jurisdiction,
o or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
or in excess of jurisdiction.
 Similarly, it is filed in the same manner and under the same
condition as in a petition for certiorari.
 It may only be availed of when there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.
PRAYER
The person aggrieved may file a verified petition in the proper court
praying that judgment be rendered:
1. commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or
2. otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
MANDAMUS
 A petition for mandamus – is the remedy taken 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 to which such other is
entitled.
 In the same manner, it can only be availed of if there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.
 A scrutiny of the provision of the rule would reveal that a writ
of mandamus may issue in either of two (2) situations, to wit:
1. 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;
The first situation demands a concurrence between a
clear legal right accruing to the petitioner and a
correlative duty incumbent upon the respondent to
perform an act, this duty being imposed upon them by
law. Such petitioner's legal right must have already been
clearly established. It cannot be a prospective
entitlement that is yet to be settled.
2. when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
3. entitled. ULIT ULIT???
 Mandamus will not issue to establish a right, but only to
enforce one that is already established. The Supreme Court has
emphasized that a writ of mandamus never issues in doubtful
cases. However, the mere existence of a legally mandated duty
or the pendency of its performance does not suffice. It must
also be shown that respondent have actually neglected to
perform the act mandated by law.
PRAYER
 The person aggrieved may file a verified petition in the proper
court, praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified
by the court:
1. to do the act required to be done to protect his or
her, and
2. to pay him or her the damages sustained by reason of
the wrongful acts of the respondent.
 It bears to note that the act sought to be done under this
remedy must be a ministerial duty on the part of the
respondent— not mere discretionary.
o The remedy of mandamus lies to compel the
performance of a ministerial duty.
10 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 o A purely ministerial act or duty, in contradistinction to powers to confer degrees at the PMA, grant awards, and
a discretionary act, is one which an officer or tribunal commission officers in the military service are discretionary acts
performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed on the part of the President as the AFP Commander- in-Chief.
manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or A mandamus petition does not lie to require anyone to a specific
her own judgment, upon the propriety or impropriety course of conduct or to control or review the exercise of
discretion. It will not issue to compel an official to do anything
of the act done.
which is not his or her duty to do or which is his or her duty not
o If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and
to do or give to the applicant anything to which he or she is not
gives him or her the right to decide how or when the entitled by law.
duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary
and not ministerial.
o Thus, the issuance of a building permit may be
considered a ministerial duty only when the
application and the plans are in conformity with the
requirements of zoning and land use, lines and
grades, structural design, sanitary and sewerage,
environmental health, electrical and mechanical
safety as well as with other rules and regulations
promulgated in accordance with the provisions of the
National Building Code. Having complied with all the
requirements for the procurement of such permit, it
became incumbent upon the City Engineer to issue
the same. Refusal to perform such act which the law
enjoins him or her to do shall entitle the applicant to
the writ of mandamus.

CUDIA VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PMA

In this case, Cudia is a cadet of the Philippine Military Academy
who is supposed to graduate with honors as salutatorian of the
Siklab Diwa class. When he was directed to explain for arriving
two (2) minutes late in a class, he claimed that they were
dismissed a little bit late by their previous class. It was, however,
discovered that his alibi was not true. Hence, an investigation was
conducted in which he was voted guilty of violating the Honor
Code. His appeal was also denied. As a result, he was dismissed
from the academy. Thus, Cudia sought the remedy of mandamus
to direct the PMA, among others, to restore his rights and
entitlements as a full-pledged graduating cadet.

The Supreme Court held that for mandamus to lie, the act sought
to be enjoined must be a ministerial act or duty. An act is
ministerial if the act should be performed under 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 the tribunal
or corporation's own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety
of the act done. The tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or
person must have no choice but to perform the act specifically
enjoined by law. This is opposed to a discretionary act whereby
the officer has the choice to decide how or when to perform the
duty.

According to it, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. It

cannot be availed against an official or government agency whose
duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. For a writ to
issue, petitioners should have a clear legal right to the thing
demanded, and there should be an imperative duty on the part of
respondents to perform the act sought to be mandated.

Ruling against the petition, the Supreme Court declared that

suffice it to say at this point that these matters are within the
ambit of or encompassed by the right of academic freedom.
Therefore, it is beyond the province of the Court to decide. The

11 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 Chapter 49
QUO WARRANTO
 The remedy of quo warranto – is vested in the people, and not
in any private individual or group, because disputes over title to
public office are viewed as public question of governmental
legitimacy and not merely private quarrel among rival
claimants.
 Quo warranto is generally defined as an action for the
usurpation of a public office, position or franchise against:
1. a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully
holds or exercise a public office, position or franchise;
2. a public officer who does or suffers an act which, by
the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the
forfeiture of his or her office;
3. an association which acts as a corporation within the
Philippines without being legally incorporated or
without lawful authority so to act.
 It is commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines.
 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 claim to be entitled thereto, if any, with an
averment of his or her right to the same and that the
respondent is unlawfully in possession thereof.
o 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.
WHO MAY FILE THE PETITION?
1. Solicitor General
2. Public Prosecutor
3. Person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position
usurped or unlawfully held or exercised.
 The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may commence the
action when:
1. directed by the President of the Philippines;
2. upon complaint or otherwise he or she has good reason to
believe that any case specified under Section 1 of Rule 66
can be established by proof.
 Commenced upon Request of Another Person
 If the action is commenced at the request of and upon
relation to another person, the same must be with the
permission of the court in which the action is commenced.
 Such action may be commenced by the Solicitor General or
the public prosecutor.
 Upon application for such permission to commence the
action, the court shall direct that notice be given to the
respondent so that he or she may be heard in opposition
thereto.
o If permission is granted, the court shall issue an
order to that effect, copies of which shall be
served on all interested parties, and the petition
shall then be filed within the period ordered by
the court.
 Indemnity Deposit
In bringing the action, the public prosecutor or the
Solicitor General may first require the person who
requested or upon whose relation the action is brought to
provide an indemnity for the expenses and costs of the
action. The amount of such bond shall be as approved by
the court. The same shall then be deposited in court.
Commenced by a Private Individual
 If the action is commenced by a private individual, only the
person who claims to be entitled to the public office or
position which was usurped or unlawfully held or exercised
may bring the action.
o Such action shall be brought in his or her own
name.
o He or she, may then maintain the action without
the intervention of the Solicitor General.
WHERE TO FILE PETITION
 The action can be brought only in:
1. the Supreme Court,
2. the Court of Appeals, or
3. in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over
the territorial area where the respondent or any of
the respondents resides.
 However, when the Solicitor General commences the action, it
may be brought in a:
1. Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila,
2. in the Court of Appeals,
3. or in the Supreme Court.
WHEN TO FILE THE ACTION
 GENERAL RULE: The action against a public officer or employee
shall be filed within one (1) year after:
1. the cause for his or her ouster from office arose, or
2. the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position
arose.
o This one-year period fixed under the Rule is a condition
precedent to the existence of the cause of action. The
inaction of an officer within such period could be validly
considered as waiver of his or her right to file the same.
Worse, he or she will be considered to have acquiesced or
consented to the very matter that he or she is questioning.
 EXCEPTION: However, in Republic vs. Screw, it was clarified
that this one-year limitation is not equally applicable when the
petitioner is not a mere private individual pursuing a private
interest but the government itself seeking relief for public
wrong and suing for public interest. Accordingly, it was held, as
a general principle, that ordinary statutes of limitation, civil or
penal, have no application to quo warranto proceeding brought
to enforce public right since prescription does not lie against
the State. Thus, the Republic cannot be faulted for questioning
her qualification for office only upon the discovery of the cause
of ouster. It reasoned out that:
o “Given the foregoing, there can be no
acquiescence or inaction, in this case, on the
part of the Republic as would amount to an
12 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 abandonment of its right to seek redress
against public wrong and vindicate public
interest. Neither can delay be attributed to the
Republic in commencing the action since
respondent deliberately concealed the fact of
her disqualification to the position.
Prescription, therefore, cannot be pleaded
against the Republic.”
JUDGMENT
 When the respondent is found guilty of usurping into, 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.
o The judgment shall also include an order that the
petitioner or relator, as the case may be, recover his
or her costs.
o 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.
 The court may also 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.
Effect of Favorable Judgment
 If judgment be rendered in favor of the person averred in the
complaint to be entitled to the public office, he or she may,
after taking the oath of office and executing any official bond
required by law, take upon himself or herself the execution of
the office.
o He or she may thereafter immediately demand of the
respondent all the books and papers in the latter's
custody or control appertaining to the office to which
the judgment relates.
o If the respondent refuses or neglects to deliver any
book or paper pursuant to such demand, he or she
may be punished for contempt as having disobeyed a
lawful order of the court.
 The person adjudged entitled to the office may also bring an
action against the respondent to recover the damages
sustained by such person by reason of the usurpation.
o Said action for damages, however, must be instituted
within one (1) year after entry of the judgment
establishing the petitioner's right to the office in
question.
 The remedies available in quo warranto judgment do not
include correction or reversal of acts taken under the ostensible
authority of an office or franchise. Judgment is limited to ouster
or forfeiture and may not be imposed retroactively upon prior
exercise of official or corporate duties.
OTHER ACTIONS BY THE COURT
 The court may reduce the period provided under the 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.
APPLICABILITY
 The above-discussed rules apply only to quo warranto
proceedings referring to an appointive position.
 Republic vs. Sereno: quo warranto proceeding is the proper
legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested
public office or to oust the holder from its enjoyment.
o In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by
election, what is to be determined is the eligibility of the
elected candidates, while in quo warranto proceedings
referring to offices filled by appointment, what is
determined is the legality of the appointment.
Note: For quo warranto proceedings referring to elective positions,
the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code shall govern. The action
shall be filed within ten (10) days after proclamation. It may be
brought by any voter even one who is not entitled to the office.
REMOVAL OF IMPEACHABLE OFFICER
 As pronounced by the Supreme Court, the Constitution allows
the institution of quo warranto action against an impeachable
officer. According to it, quo warranto petition is predicated on
grounds distinct from those of impeachment.
 In taking cognizance of the petition and eventually granting the
ouster from office of then Chief Justice Sereno, it explained that
a quo warranto petition questions the validity of a public
officer's appointment while impeachment indicts him or her for
the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his or
her title to the office he or she holds.
 Quo warranto and impeachment are not mutually exclusive
remedies and may even proceed simultaneously. The existence
of other remedies against the usurper does not prevent the
State from commencing quo warranto proceeding. Thus, they
may proceed independently of each other as the remedies are
distinct as to
a. jurisdiction
b. grounds,
c. applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and
dismissal, and
d. limitations.
13 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
IMPEACHMENT VS QUO WARRANTO OTHER ACTIONS FOR QUO WARRANTO
Impeachment Quo Warranto Against Whom Where to File
As to Definition Members of the Senate Senate Electoral Tribunal
a proceeding exercised by the involves judicial determination Members of the House of House of Representatives
legislative, as representatives Representative Electoral Tribunal
of the sovereign, Elected regional, provincial and Commission on Elections
city officials
to vindicate the breach of the of the eligibility or validity of Elected municipal officials Regional Trial Court
trust reposed by the people in the election or appointment of Elected barangay officials Municipal Trial Court
the hands of the public officer public official based on
by determining the public predetermined rules. Note: The Sandiganbayan shall also exercise exclusive original
officer's fitness to stay in the jurisdiction in petitions for quo warranto when it involves:
office. 1. an incident arising from, or related to PCGG cases over alleged
As to Reliefs Sought "ill-gotten wealth" and
Conviction for the charges of When the respondent is found 2. those arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be
impeachable offenses shall guilty of usurping, intruding
filed under E.O. Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
result to the removal of the into, or unlawfully holding or
respondent from the public exercising public office,
office that he or she is legally judgment shall be rendered This is, however, subject to the condition that the jurisdiction over
holding. It is not legally that such respondent be these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
possible to impeach or remove ousted and altogether
person from an office that he excluded therefrom. In short,
or she, in the first place, does respondent in quo warranto
not and cannot legally hold or proceeding shall be adjudged
occupy. to cease from holding public
office, which he or she is
ineligible to hold.

As to What Acts/Omissions are the Subjects of the Action

Acts or omissions, even if it An act or omission committed
relates to the qualification of prior to or at the time of
integrity, being continuing appointment or election
requirement but nonetheless relating to an official's
committed during the qualifications to hold office as
incumbency of validly to render such appointment or
appointed and/or validly election invalid is properly the
elected official, cannot be the subject of quo warranto
subject of quo warranto petition, provided that the
proceeding, but of something requisites for the
else, which may either be commencement thereof are
impeachment if the public present.
official concerned
is impeachable and the act or
omission constitutes an
impeachable
offense, or disciplinary,
administrative or criminal
action, if otherwise.

14 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 Chapter 50
EXPROPRIATION
 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.
o The verified petition shall describe the real or
personal property sought to be expropriated.
o It shall join as defendants all persons owning or
claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof or
interest therein.
o The petition shall also show, so far as practicable, the
separate interest of each defendant.
 Averment to that effect shall be also made in the complaint if
the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to
be:
1. in the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by
private individuals; or
2. if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the
plaintiff cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are
the real owners.
ENTRY UPON THE PROPERTY
The plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession
of the real property involved:
1. upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter;
2. after due notice to the defendant; and
3. deposit of the amount equivalent to the assessed value of
the property for purposes of taxation.
ESCROW DEPOSIT
 Such amount required shall be deposited in escrow with the
authorized government depositary. It shall be held by such bank
subject to the orders of the court.
 The deposit shall be in money, unless 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 in lieu thereof.
 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 GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
 For expropriation under R. A. No. 8974, the government is
required to make an initial payment for the just compensation
immediately upon the filing of the complaint.
o Such amount to be initially paid shall be equivalent to
100% of the value of the property based on the
current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, and the value of the improvements
and/or structures sought to be expropriated.
o In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas
where there is no zonal valuation, the Bureau of
Internal Revenue is mandated by law to come up with
a zonal valuation for said area within the period of
sixty (60) days from the date of the expropriation
case.
 It must be noted that prior to the effectivity of said law, the
amount of just compensation shall be based on the value of the
land at the time of the taking or at the time of the filing of the
complaint for expropriation whichever came first. It being a
substantive law, however, it cannot be given retroactive effect.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
 For expropriation under the Local Government Code, a deposit
of the amount of 15% of the fair market value of the property
based on its current tax declaration is required.
 The amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be
determined by the proper court based on its fair market value
at the time of the taking thereof.
DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS
 WITHOUT DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS: If a defendant has no
objection or defense to the action or the taking of his or her
property, he or she may file and serve a notice of appearance
and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or
identifying the property in which he or she claims to be
interested. Said notice and manifestation shall be filed within
the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he or she shall be
entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same.
 WITH DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS: If a defendant has any
objection to the filing of or to the allegations in the complaint,
or any objection or defense to the taking of his or her property,
he or she shall serve his or her answer within the time stated in
the summons. The answer shall specifically designate or identify
the property in which he or she claims to have an interest, state
the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all
his or her objections and defenses to the taking of his or her
property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any
subsequent pleading.
 Waiver of Defenses and Objections
 All defenses and objections not so alleged in the answer shall
be considered waived. However, 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.
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: 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.
15 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT
 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. This is due to
the fact that the landowner may have already suffered
damages at the start of the taking.
 The dismissal of the case is always subject to the approval of
the court and to certain conditions.
APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF EXPROPRIATION
 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. The appeal from
such final order requires a record on appeal.
JUST 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.
o Objections to the appointment of any of the
commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten
(10) days from service of such order.
o These objections shall be resolved within thirty (30)
days after all the commissioners shall have received
copies thereof.
 Oath of Commissioners
o 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.
 Proceedings by Commissioners
o Evidence may be introduced by either party before
the commissioners who are authorized to administer
oaths on hearings before them.
o After due notice to the parties, they shall attend, view
and examine the property sought to be expropriated
and its surroundings, and may measure the same,
unless the parties consent to the contrary.
o After which, either party, by himself or herself or by
counsel, may argue the case.
o 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.
o In no case shall the consequential benefits assessed
exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the
owner be deprived of the actual value of his or her
property so taken.
FAILURE TO ANSWER NOT BAR TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
 At the trial of the issue of just compensation, the defendant
may present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to
be paid for his or her property whether or not he or she has
previously appeared or answered. He or she may also share in
the distribution of the award.
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT
 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. The court may also, from time to time, so 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.
o 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.
o Upon the 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.
o However, in Republic vs. Mupas, the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the validity of the judgment rendered
by the court despite the claim of the defendants that
they did not receive the copy of the final report of the
commissioners thereby depriving them of the right to
object to the contents thereof. In upholding the
decision of the trial court, the Supreme Court
explained that:
"The essence of procedural due process is the right to be heard. The
procedural due process requirements in an eminent domain case are
satisfied if the parties are given the opportunity to present their
evidence before the commissioners whose findings (together with
the pleadings, evidence of the parties, and the entire record of the
case) are reviewed and considered by the expropriation court. It is
the parties’ total failure to present evidence on just compensation
that renders the trial court’s ruling void. The opportunity to present
evidence during the trial remains to be the vital requirement in the
observance of due process.”
COURT’S ACTION
 Upon the expiration of the 10-day period to object to the
commissioners' report, or even before the expiration of such
period but after all the interested parties have filed their
objections thereto or their statement of agreement therewith,
the court, after hearing, may:
1. accept the report and render judgment in accordance
therewith; or
2. for cause shown, recommit the same to the commissioners
for further report of facts; or
16 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s
 3. set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or
4. accept the report in part and reject it in part; and
5. make such order or render such judgment as shall secure
to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his
or her right of expropriation, and to the defendant just
compensation for the property so taken.
 For expropriation under R.A. No. 8974, when the decision of the
court in the determination of just compensation becomes final
and executory, the implementing agency shall make a final
payment to the owner equal to the difference between the
amount initially paid and the just compensation as determined
by the court.
INTEREST ON JUST COMPENSATION
 Ideally, just compensation should be immediately made
available to the property owner so that he or she may derive
income from this compensation, in the same manner that he or
she would have derived income from his or her expropriated
property.
 If full compensation is not paid for the property taken, then the
State must pay for the shortfall in the earning potential
immediately lost due to the taking, and the absence of
replacement property from which income can be derived.
 Interest on the unpaid compensation becomes due as
compliance with the constitutional mandate on eminent
domain and as a basic measure of fairness.
 The reason is that just compensation would not be "just" if the
State does not pay the property owner interest on the just
compensation from the date of the taking of the property.
 Without prompt payment, the property owner suffers the
immediate deprivation of both his or her land and its fruits or
income. The owner's loss, of course, is not only his or her
property but also its income-generating potential. Thus,
interest in eminent domain cases runs as a matter of law and
follows as a matter of course from the right of the landowner to
be placed in as good a position as money can accomplish, as of
the date of taking.
RIGHTS OF 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 or her of the amount so fixed and payment
of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right to:
o enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate
it for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment; or
o retain it if plaintiff have previously taken immediate
possession thereof.
 If the defendant and his or her 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.
JUDGMENT
 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. Such registration shall have an
effect of vesting in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so
described for such public use or purpose.
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.
EFFECT OF APPEAL
• An appeal taken from the judgment shall not delay the right of
the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and
appropriate the same for public use or purpose.
EFFECT OF REVERSAL
• If the appellate court determines that plaintiff has no right of
expropriation, it shall render judgment 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.
COSTS
• The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as a part of the
costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival
claimants litigating their claims, shall be paid by the plaintiff.
• However, when an appeal is taken by the owner of the property
and the judgment is affirmed, the costs of the appeal shall be
paid by the owner.
POWER OF GUARDIAN IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS
• The guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor or of a person
judicially declared to be incompetent may, with the approval of
the court first had, do and perform on behalf of his or her
ward any act, matter, or thing respecting the expropriation for
public use or purpose of property belonging to such minor or
person judicially declared to be incompetent, which such minor
or person judicially declared to be incompetent could do in
such proceedings if he or she were of age or competent.
17 | S p e c i a l C i v i l A c ti o n s