RULE 62 c.

The conflicting claims are made against the same

person; and
d. The plaintiff has no claim upon the subject
INTERPLEADER
Definition matter of the adverse claims or if he has an interest at
all, such interest is not disputed by the claimants.
An interpleader is a special civil action filed by a person
[Sec. 1, Rule
against whom two conflicting claims are made upon the
same subject matter and over which he claims no interest 62]
whatsoever, or if he has an interest, it is one which, in
whole or in part, is not disputed by the claimants.  When to File
[Sec. 1, Rule 62]
General rule: An action for Interpleader should be filed
Purpose of the remedy within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen
1. To compel the conflicting claimants to interplead and without waiting to be sued by either of the contending
litigate their several claims among themselves. [Sec. 1, parties. Otherwise, it may be barred by laches. [Wack
Rule 62] Wack Golf & Country Club v. Lee Won, G.R. No. L-23851
2. Not to protect a person against double liability but to (1976)]
protect him from double vexation in respect of one
liability. [Beltran v. PHHC, G.R. No. L-25138 (1969) Exception: Where the stakeholder acts with reasonable
diligence in view of environmental circumstances, the
Interpleader vs. Intervention remedy is not barred. [Wack Wack Golf & Country Club v.
Interpleader Intervention Lee Won,
Ancillary action, i.e. there is a G.R. No. L-23851 (1976)]
Original action pending
action Who may file
The person against whom the conflicting claims are made
Intervenor claims an interest
and claims no interest in the
Plaintiff either has that is adverse to at least one
subject matter. [Sec. 1, Rule 62]
1. No interest or; of the existing parties, or will
be adversely affected by
2. An interest in the Procedure
subject matter judgment in favor of either of
Filing of an action against the conflicting claimants to
undisputed by the the compel them to interplead and litigate their
other parties existing parties several claims among themselves [Sec. 1, Rule
62] ↓
Defendants to a Court order upon the filing of the complaint requiring
complaint-in- the conflicting claimants to
Defendants are sued to interplead with one another. If the interests of justice
intervention are parties to
be impleaded so require, the court may direct in such order that the
a pending suit
subject matter be paid or delivered to the court [Sec. 2,
[1 Regalado 321, 2010 Ed.] Rule 62] ↓
Summons served upon the conflicting claimants,
together with a copy of the complaint and order [Sec.
Requisites for Interpleader
3, Rule 62]
↓
a. There must be 2 or more claimants with
Answer of each claimant setting forth his claim within
adverse or conflicting interest; 15 days from service of the summons upon him, serving
b. The conflicting claims involves the same subject a copy thereof upon each of the other conflicting
matter;
 claimants who may file their reply thereto as provided Proper Grounds to Dismiss an Interpleader As mentioned
by the ROC. above, the following are submitted to be the allowable
grounds for a motion to dismiss an interpleader under the
Counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and Amended Rules, to wit:
responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by the ROC, 1. Impropriety of Interpleader [Sec. 4, Rule 62]
may be filed by the parties in an interpleader action. 2. Allowable grounds for a motion to dismiss, namely:
[Sec. 5, Rule 62]
a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject
OR matter
b. Litis pendentia
Motion to dismiss filed by each claimant within the c. Res judicata
time for filing an answer on the ground of impropriety d. Prescription [Sec. 12(a), Rule 15]
of the interpleader action or on other appropriate
grounds specified in Rule 16. The period to file the
answer shall be tolled and if the motion is denied, the 5. DECLARATORY RELIEFS AND SIMILAR
movant may file his answer within the remaining REMEDIES
period, but which shall not be less than 5 days in any
event, reckoned from notice of denial [Sec. 4, Rule Two types of actions under Rule 63
62] 1. Petition for declaratory relief, and
2. Similar remedies
Note: Even if a motion to dismiss is now a prohibited
a. Action for reformation of an instrument;
pleading under the Amended Rules, it is submitted that
b. Action to quiet title or remove clouds therefrom,
a motion to dismiss can still be filed on the basis of the
and
impropriety of an interpleader, even if such ground is
c. Action to consolidate ownership under
not among those listed for an allowable motion to
Art. 1607, CC
dismiss under Sec. 12, Rule 15. This is because the rules
[Sec. 1, Rule 63]
of ordinary civil actions are subject to the special rules
prescribed for a special civil action. [Sec. 3(c), Rule 1] In
Definitin
light of Sec. 3(c), Rule 1 as well, the grounds for an
Declaratory relief is an action by any person interested in
allowable motion to dismiss should likewise be allowed
a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
as proper grounds for a motion to dismiss an
executive order or resolution, to determine any
interpleader. [see Sec. 12(a)(1-3), Rule 15] ↓
question of construction or validity arising from the
Pre-trial [Sec. 6, Rule 62]
instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and
↓
for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. [Sec.
Determination of the claimants’ respective rights and
1, Rule 63; Jumamil v. Cafe, G.R. No. 144570 (2005)]
adjudicate their several claims
[Sec. 6, Rule 62]
The only issue that can be raised in such a petition is the
question of construction or validity of provisions in an
Effect of failure to answer If any claimant fails to plead
instrument or statute. Corollary is the general rule that
within the time herein fixed, the court may, on motion,
such an action must be justified, as no other adequate
a. Declare him in default and
relief is available. [2 Riano 142,
b. Render judgment barring him from any claim in
2016 Bantam Ed.]
respect to the subject matter.
Purpose
[Sec. 5, Rule 62]
To secure an authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract,
c. Dismissal etc. for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance
and not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach.
[Tambunting v. Sumabat and Baello, G.R. No.
144101 (2005)]
Subject matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief
The subject matter in a petition for declaratory relief is
any of the following:
1. Deed
2. Will
3. Contract or other written instrument
4. Statute
5. Executive order or regulation
6. Ordinance, or
7. Any other government regulation.
[Sec. 1, Rule 63]
Note: The enumeration is exclusive. Hence, an action not
based on any of those enumerated cannot be the proper
subject of declaratory relief. [Mangahas v. Paredes, G.R.
No. 157866 (2007)]
Where to File Declaratory Relief
Jurisdiction
General Rule: Exclusive and original jurisdiction is with the
RTC since the subject in a petition for declaratory relief is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Sec. 19, B.P.129, as
amended by R.A. 7691].
The SC has no original jurisdiction over these petitions,
only appellate jurisdiction [Liga ng mga Barangay
National v. City Mayor of
Manila, G.R. No. 154599 (2004)]
Exception: Where the action is a proceeding similar to
declaratory relief (e.g. quieting of title to real property),
jurisdiction will depend on the assessed value of the
property. [Malana v.
Tappa, G.R. No. 181303 (2009)]
Venue: General rule on venue applies, see Rule 4.
Who May File Action
Any person:
a. Interested under a deed, will, contract or other
written instrument,
b. Whose rights are affected by a statute, executive
order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation, and
c. Who files before the breach or violation
thereof.
[Sec. 1, Rule 63]
Parties to the action
a. All persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected by the declaration [Sec. 2, Rule 63]
b. 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
[Sec. 3, Rule 63]
c. 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. 4, Rule 63]
Note: Non-joinder of interested persons is not a
jurisdictional defect; but persons not joined shall not be
prejudiced in their interests unless otherwise provided by
the Rules. [Baguio Citizens Action v. City Council of Baguio,
G.R.
No. L-27247 (1983)]
Requisites
a. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed,
will, contract or other written instrument, statute,
executive order or regulation, or ordinance
b. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof
are doubtful and require judicial construction;
c. There must have been no breach of the documents in
question
d. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the
"ripening seeds" of one between persons whose
interests are adverse
e. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
f. Adequate relief is not available through other means
or other forms of action or proceeding.
[Republic v. Roque, G.R. No. 204603 (2013)]
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or
controversy appropriate or ripe for judicial determination,
not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory [Velarde
v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357
(2004)]
c. When Court May Refuse To
Make Judicial Declaration
General Rule: The court, motu proprio or upon motion,
may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to
construe instruments in any case where a decision would
not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave
rise to the action, or in any case where the declaration or
construction is not necessary and proper under the
circumstances.
Exception: Actions falling under the 2nd par of
Sec. 1, Rule 63
a. An action for the reformation of an instrument,
recognized under Articles
1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code;
b. An action to quiet title, authorized by
Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and
c. An action to consolidate ownership required by
Article 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with a right to
repurchase.
[Sec. 5, Rule 63]
d. Conversion to Ordinary Action
The action may be converted into an ordinary action if:
a. Before the final termination of the case,
b. A breach or violation of an instrument or a statute,
executive order, regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation should take place.
Note: The parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings as
may be necessary or proper.
[Sec. 6, Rule 63]
A petition for declaratory relief is filed before the
occurrence of any breach or violation of the deed,
contract, statute, ordinance or executive order or
regulation. It will not prosper when brought after a
contract or a statute has already been breached or
violated. If there has already been a breach, the
appropriate ordinary civil action and not declaratory
relief should be filed [City of Lapu-Lapu v. PEZA,
G.R. No. 184203 (2014)]
e. Proceedings Considered as Similar Remedies
These remedies are considered similar to declaratory
relief because they also result in the adjudication of legal
rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution
to carry the judgment into effect:
a. An action for the reformation of an instrument,
recognized under Articles
1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code;
b. An action to quiet title, authorized by
Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and
c. An action to consolidate ownership required by
Article 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with a right to
repurchase.
[Malana v. Tappa, G.R. No. 181303 (2009)]
However, a distinction must be made between these
proceedings and an action for declaratory relief because
of Sec. 5, Rule 63 on when the court’s action on such a
petition is discretionary.
i. Reformation of an Instrument
Definition
Reformation is a remedy in equity, whereby a written
instrument is made or construed so as to express or
conform to the real intention of the parties, where some
error or mistake has been committed. [Multi-Ventures
Capital v. Stalwart Management Services Corp., G.R.
No. 157439 (2007)]
What are the requisites for reformation?
1. There must have been a meeting of the minds of the
parties to the contract;
2. The instrument does not express the true intention of
the parties; and
3. Failure of the instrument to express the true intention
of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct or accident.
[Multi-Ventures Capital v. Stalwart Management Services
Corp., G.R. No. 157439
(2007)]
Burden of proof
The onus probandi is upon the party who insists that the
contract should be reformed. [Multi-Ventures Capital v.
Stalwart Management Services Corp, G.R. No. 157439
(2007)]
Prescriptive period
In an action for reformation, the plaintiff has 10 years
within which to bring it from the time the right of action
accrued. [Veluz v. Veluz, G.R.
No. L-23261 (1968)]
CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON THE
REFORMATION OF AN INSTRUMENT
When the remedy is reformation of the instrument
When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the
parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed
in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement,
by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation
of the instrument to the end that such true intention may
be expressed. [Art.
1359, CC]
When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of
the instrument to disclose their real agreement, the said
instrument may be
reformed [Art. 1361, CC]
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, CC]
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, CC]
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, CC]
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, CC]
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
[Art. 1368, CC]
When the remedy is for annulment of the contract
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, CC]
The principles of general law on reformation of
instruments are adopted insofar as they are not in conflict
with the provisions of the Civil Code.
[Art. 1360, CC]
There shall be no reformation in the following cases:
1. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is
imposed,
2. Wills, or
3. When the real agreement is void.
[Art. 1366, CC]
When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce
the instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its
reformation [Art. 1367,
CC]
ii. Consolidation of Ownership
In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in
the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to
comply with the provisions of Art. 1616 shall not be
recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial
order, after the
vendor has been duly heard. [Art. 1607, CC]
The vendor cannot avail himself of the right of repurchase
without returning to the vendee the price of the sale, and
in addition:
1. The expenses of the contract, and any other
legitimate payments made by reason of the sale;
2. The necessary and useful expenses made on the thing
sold.
[Art. 1616, CC]
Purpose
The action brought to consolidate ownership is not for the
purpose of consolidating the ownership of the 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. [Rosario v.
Rosario, G.R. No. L-13018
(1960)]
iii. Quieting of Title to Real Property
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 the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from
being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein.
[Art. 476, CC]
The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or
interest in the real property which is the subject-matter of
the action. He need not be in possession of said property.
[Art. 477, CC]
Requisites
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.
[Mananquil v. Moico, G.R. No. 180076 (2012)]
6. REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS OR RESOLUTION OF THE
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Scope
Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the
COMELEC and the COA.
[Sec. 1, 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 [Sec. 2, Rule 64], not on appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45.
Reglementary period
The petition shall be filed within 30 days from notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed [Sec. 3, Rule 64].
The 30-day period refers to a petition directed against a
final order or judgement of the commission concerned. As
such, if a petition for certiorari is directed against an
interlocutory order, the 60-day period in Rule 65 should
apply. [2 Riano 178, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
Interruption of the 30-day period
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 5 days in any event,
reckoned from notice of denial [Sec. 3, Rule 64]
 Prohibition is a writ issued by the proper court and
directed against any tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions, commanding the respondent to
desist from further proceedings in the action or matter
a. Distinctions in the Application of Rule 65 to specified therein [Sec. 2, Rule 65]
Judgments of the COMELEC and COA and
the Mandamus is a writ to compel a tribunal, corporation,
Application of Rule 65 to Other Tribunals, board, officer or person to do the act required to be done
Persons, and to protect the rights of the petitioner when the
Officers respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station, or excludes another from the
Rule 64 Rule 65
use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other
Directed to judgments, Directed to any is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
tribunal, board, or
final orders or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
officer exercising
resolutions of [Sec. 3, Rule 65]
judicial or
COMELEC and quasijudicial
COA. [Sec. 1] functions. [Sec. 1] b. Requisites
Filed within 30 days Filed within 60 days
from notice of the from notice of the Certiorari
judgment. [Sec. 3] judgment. [Sec. 4] a. Respondent is exercising judicial or quasi- judicial
The denial of a prior The denial of the function;
motion for motion for b. Respondent acted without or in excess of its
reconsideration or new reconsideration or jurisdiction or acted with grave abuse of discretion
trial gives the filing new trial gives the amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and
part time to file filing party a fresh c. There must be no appeal or no other plain, speedy,
within the remainder period of 60 days for and adequate remedy.
of the 30-day period, the filing of a Rule 65 [Sec. 1, Rule 65; Barbers v. COMELEC, G.R.
but never less than 5 petition for No. 165691 (2005)]
days reckoned from certiorari. [Sec. 4]
the notice of denial. Notes on certiorari:
[Sec. 3] a. A respondent is said to be exercising judicial functions
where he has the power to determine what the law is
and what the legal rights of parties are.
7. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND b. Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the
MANDAMUS action of administrative officers or bodies to
investigate facts and draw conclusions. [2 Riano 195,
a. Definitions and Distinctions 2016
Bantam Ed.]
Certiorari is a writ emanating from the proper court c. The acts that may be the object of the petition are:
directed against any tribunal, board or officer exercising 1. Acts without jurisdiction - denotes that the
judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the purpose of which is tribunal, board, or officers acted with absolute
to correct errors of jurisdiction - i.e. without or in excess lack of authority
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion 2. Excess of jurisdiction - when the respondent
amounting to the same. [Sec. 1, Rule 65] exceeds its power or acts without any statutory
authority
 3. Grave abuse of discretion - connotes capricious Note: The common requisite among certiorari, prohibition,
and whimsical exercise of judgement as to be and mandamus is that there is no other plain, speedy, or
equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. [Secs. 1,
[2 Riano 205, 2016 Bantam Ed.] 2, 3,
Rule 65]
Prohibition
a. Respondent is exercising judicial or quasi- judicial c. When Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition,
function;
and Mandamus is
b. Respondent acted without or in excess of its
Proper
jurisdiction or acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and
Certiorari is a corrective remedy used to correct errors of
c. There must be no appeal or no other plain, speedy,
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
and adequate remedy.
[Sec. 2, Rule 65; Barbers v. COMELEC, G.R.
Note: Errors of judgement are those errors arising from
No. 165691 (2005)]
erroneous conclusions of law. They are reviewable by
appeal, not by certiorari. [Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas, 638
Mandamus
SCRA 444]
a. Respondent unlawfully
1. Neglects the performance of an act which the law
Questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
certiorari. Only established or admitted facts may be
office, trust, or station, or
considered. [Suarez v.
2. Excludes another from the use and enjoyment of
NLRC, G.R. No. 124723 (1998)]
a right or office to which such other is entitled,
and
General rule: Where an appeal is available, certiorari will
b. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
not lie [Jose v. Zulueta, G.R. No.
in the ordinary course of law.
L-16598 (1961)]
[Sec. 3, Rule 65]
Exceptions:
Discretionary vs. Ministerial act
a. Where appeal does not constitute a speedy and
Discretionary act Ministerial act adequate remedy;
One which an officer b. Where orders were also issued either in excess of or
or tribunal performs without jurisdiction;
in a given state of c. For certain special considerations, as public welfare or
facts, in a prescribed public policy;
The law imposes a manner, in obedience
d. Where, in criminal actions, the court rejects the
duty upon a public to the mandate of a
rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as, in the case
officer and gives him legal authority,
without regard to or of acquittal, there could be no remedy;
the right to decide e. Where the order is a patent nullity; and
how or when the duty the exercise of his
own judgment upon f. Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid
shall be performed.
the propriety or future litigations.
impropriety of the act [Villarica Pawnshop v. Gernale, G.R. No.
done. 163344 (2009)]

Prohibition
[Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. Villaflor, G.R. No.
Prohibition is a preventive remedy. However, to prevent
128509 (2006)]
the respondent from performing the act sought to be
prevented during the pendency of the proceedings for the
writ, the petitioner should obtain a restraining order
and/or a writ of preliminary injunction. [1
Regalado 801, 2010 Ed.]
The office of prohibition is not to correct errors of
judgment but to prevent or restrain usurpation by inferior
tribunals and to compel them to observe the limitation of
their jurisdictions. [3 Herrera 321, 2006 Ed.]
General rule: Prohibition, as a rule, does NOT lie to
restrain an act which is already fait accompli (one that has
already been done) [Cabañero and Mangornong v. Torres,
G.R.
No. L-43352 (1935)]
Exception: A writ of prohibition will lie to prevent the
unlawful creation of a new province by those in the
corridors of power who could avoid judicial intervention
and review by merely speedily and stealthily completing
the commission of such illegality. [Tan
v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 73155 (1986)]
Mandamus
There must be a well-defined, clear legal right or duty.
[Valmonte v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930 (1989)] The duty
must be enjoined by law; hence, a contractual duty cannot
be enforced by mandamus [Province of
Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission, G.R.
No. L-27448 (1977)]
The respondent must be exercising a ministerial duty.
[Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. Villaflor, G.R. No. 128509 (2006)] As
such, mandamus “will lie to compel discharge of the
discretionary duty itself but not to control the discretion
to be exercised. In other words, a mandamus can be
issued to require action, but not specific action.”
[Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v.
Sec. of
Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742 (1989)]
However, in extreme situations generally in criminal cases,
mandamus lies to compel the performance by the fiscal of
discretionary functions where his actuations are
tantamount to a willful refusal to perform a required duty.
[1
Regalado 804, 2010 Ed.]
Grounds:
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully
a. NEGLECTS the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or
b. EXCLUDES another from the use and enjoyment of a
right or office to which such other is entitled.
[Sec. 3, Rule 65]
Mandamus is the proper remedy when the respondent
unlawfully excludes the petitioner from a public office,
position or franchise to which the latter is entitled without
usurping, intruding into or unlawfully holding the office.
However, if the respondent claims any right to the office
and usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds it against the
petitioner, quo warranto is the proper remedy [Sec. 1,
Rule 66]
d. Injunctive Relief
General rule
The petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case
• The public respondent shall proceed with the principal
case within 10 days from filing of the petition for
certiorari with the higher court, absent a TRO or
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.
[Sec. 7, Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-
7-12-SC]
Exceptions:
a. When a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction has
been issued, enjoining the public respondent from
further proceeding with the case. [Sec. 7, Rule 65, as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC]
b. The doctrine of judicial courtesy: Even if there is no
injunction issued, the lower court should defer to the
higher court where 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
proceedings in the court of origin. [Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 166859 (2006)]
e. Distinguish: Certiorari, Appeal by Certiorari, and
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution
available in the
ordinary course of law
Raises only Raises only questions
questions of law of law Raises
Raises questions of questions of
jurisdiction, i.e. jurisdiction, i.e.
whether a tribunal, whether a tribunal,
board or officer board or officer
exercising judicial or exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial quasi-judicial
functions has acted functions has acted
without jurisdiction without jurisdiction or
or in excess of in excess of
jurisdiction or with jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of grave abuse of
discretion discretion amounting
amounting to lack of to lack of jurisdiction
jurisdiction
Filed within 15 days Filed not later than 60
from notice of days from notice of
judgment or final judgment, order, or
order appealed from, resolution sought to be
or of the denial of assailed.
petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration
or new trial.
Extension of 30 days Extension granted only
may be granted for under exceptional
justifiable reasons. cases (infra).
Does not require a Motion for
prior motion for reconsideration is a
reconsideration condition precedent,
subject to exceptions
Stays the judgment Does not stay the
appealed from judgment or order
subject of the petition,
unless enjoined or
restrained
Does not stay the Does not stay the
judgment or order judgment or order
subject of the subject of the petition,
petition, unless unless enjoined or
enjoined or restrained
restrained
Review by the SC is If the order is sufficient
discretionary and will in form and substance,
be granted only the RTC shall: 1. order
when there are respondents to
special or important comment, then 2. (a)
reasons [Sec. 6, Rule hear the case or (b)
45] require the parties to
file memoranda. But
the SC/CA may require
a comment before
giving the petition due
course.
[1 Regalado 612, 2010 Ed.]
Note: The remedies of appeal and certiorari are
mutually exclusive and not alternative or
successive. Thus, a petitioner must show valid
reasons why the issues raised in his petition for
certiorari could not have been raised on appeal.
[Villamar-Sandoval v. Cailipan, G.R. No. 200727
(2013)]
Expanded Scope of Certiorari
While Rule 65 specifically requires that the respondent
be a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions, recent
pronouncements of the Court have extended the
reach of the petition to functions that are neither
judicial or quasijudicial. [Araullo v. Aquino, G.R.
No. 209287 (2014)]
F. Distinguish: Prohibition, Mandamus, and
Injunction
Injunction Prohibition
Ordinary civil action Special civil action
Directed only to the Directed to the court
party litigants, itself, commanding it
without in any to cease from the
manner interfering exercise of a
with the court jurisdiction to which it
has no legal claim
Does not involve the It is based on the
 jurisdiction of the ground that the court g. When and Where to File Petition
court against whom the writ
is sought had acted Petition and contents
without or in excess of A verified petition is
jurisdiction a. Filed in the proper court
Main action or Main action 1. Alleging the facts with certainty
provisional remedy 2. Praying for the proper judgment; and
b. Accompanied by:
[2 Riano 58, 2016 Bantam Ed.] 1. A certified true copy of the judgment,
order, resolution subject thereof

Injunction Mandamus 2. Copies of all pleadings and relevant Rule on

Ordinary civil action Special civil action
extension of time for filing and pertinent
Directed against a
Directed against a tribunal, corporation, documents General rule: The 60-day period
litigant board, or officer
Purpose is to either Purpose is for the within which
refrain the defendant tribunal, corporation,
3. A sworn certification of non-forum to file a
from performing an board, or officer, to
act or to perform not perform a ministerial petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is shopping
necessarily a legal and and legal duty
non-extendible.
ministerial duty
[Secs. 1-3, Rule 65]
When to file i. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
Not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order, or without appellant’s fault;
resolution. If a motion for reconsideration or new trial is j. Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant
filed, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of to each case;
denial of motion. [Sec. 4, Rule 65] k. In the name of substantial justice and fair
Exception: Under the following exceptional circumstances, play;
the Court may extend the period according to its sound l. Importance of the issues involved; and
discretion: m. Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all
a. Most persuasive and weighty reasons; the attendant circumstances.
b. To relieve a litigant from an injustice not [Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
commensurate with his failure to comply with the 191215 (2014)]
prescribed procedure;
c. Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately h. Exceptions to Filing of Motion for
paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
Reconsideration Before
default;
Filing Petition
d. The existence of special or compelling
circumstances;
General rule: A motion for reconsideration is an essential
e. The merits of the case;
precondition for the filing of a petition for certiorari,
f. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
prohibition, or mandamus. It is a plain, speedy, and
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
adequate remedy.
the rules;
g. A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely • This is to enable the lower court, in the first instance,
frivolous and dilatory; to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the
h. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced intervention of the higher court. [Teng v. Pahagac,
thereby; G.R. No. 169704 (2010)]

Exceptions:
An MR may be dispensed with in some cases, such as:
a. Where the order is a patent nullity;
b. Where questions 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;
c. Where there is urgent necessity for the resolution of
the question and any further delay would prejudice
the interests of the
Government;
d. Where under the circumstances, an MR would be
useless, as where the court had already indicated that
it would deny any
MR of its questioned order;
e. Where the petitioner was deprived of due process and
there is extreme urgency for
relief;
f. Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and granting such relief by trial court is
improbable;
g. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity
for lack of due process;
h. Where the proceeding was ex-parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object;
i. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where
public interest is involved;
j. Where the subject matter of the action is perishable.
[Ombudsman v. Laja, G.R. No. 169241 (2006)]
i. Reliefs Petitioner is Entitled to
Reliefs Court may:
a. 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. [Sec. 7, Rule 65]
b. Incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
[Secs. 1-2, Rule 65]
c. Other reliefs prayed to which the petitioner is
entitled. [Sec. 8, Rule 65]
d. Disciplinary sanctions for erring lawyers for patently
dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari.
[Sec. 8, Rule 65]
Prayers Certiorari
a. That the judgment be rendered annulling or modifying
the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer; and
b. Granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require [Sec. 1, Rule 65] Prohibition
a. That the judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the
action or matter specified; or
b. Otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require [Sec. 2, Rule 65]
Mandamus
a. That the 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
b. To pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by
reason of the wrongful acts of
the respondent [Sec. 3, Rule 65]
j. Acts or Omissions of FirstLevel/Regional
Trial Courts in
Election Cases
In election cases involving an act or omission of a
municipal or RTC, the petition [for certiorari, prohibition,
or mandamus] shall be filed exclusively with the
COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. [Sec. 4, par.
3, Rule 65 as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12- SC
(2007)]
k. Effects of Filing of an
Unmeritorious Petition
The court may dismiss the petition if:
a. It finds the same patently without merit or prosecuted
manifestly for delay, or
b. If the questions raised therein are too
insubstantial to require consideration.
Effect of dismissal
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.
• The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res
ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary measures on
 erring lawyers for patently dilatory
unmeritorious petitioner for certiorari.
[Sec. 8, Rule 65]
8. QUO WARRANTO
A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to
determine the right or title to the contested public office
and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. [Defensor-
Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134577 (1998)]
and 2. If the dispute is as to the counting of votes or on
matters connected with the conduct of the election, a
quo warranto is not the proper remedy but an election
protest. [Cesar v. Garrido, G.R. No. 30705 (1929)]
3. Acts or omissions, even if it relates to the qualification
of integrity, being a continuing requirement but
nonetheless committed during the incumbency of a
validly appointed and/or validly elected official, cannot
be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding.
[Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No.
237428 (2018)]

Literally means “by what authority”, it is a prerogative writ Jurisdiction

by which the court can call upon any person to show by 1. Original jurisdiction to issue the writ of quo warranto
what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public is vested in the SC, CA, and RTC. [Sec. 5(1), Art. VIII,
franchise. [Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. Constitution; Secs. 9 and 21, B.P. 129]
161434 (2004)] 2. Quo warranto actions against corporations with
regard to franchises and rights granted to them, as
Subject matter
well as the dissolution of corporations now fall under
An action for the usurpation of a public office, the jurisdiction of the RTC. [Sec. 5.2, RA No. 8799 in
position or franchise. [Sec. 1, Rule 66] relation to P.D. 902-A; Unilongo v. CA, G.R. No. 123910
(1999)]
Against whom may the action be brought
3. The usurpation of an office in a private corporation
1. A PERSON who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully
falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC under Sec. 5.2,
holds or exercises a public office, position, or franchise
R.A. 8799 in relation to P.D. 902-A; Calleja v. Panday,
• Note: Sec. 2, Article XI of the G.R. No. 168696 (2006)]
Constitution allows the institution of a quo
warranto action against an impeachable officer. a. Distinguish: Quo Warranto Under the Rules
After all, a quo warranto petition is predicated on
of Court and Quo Warranto Under the
grounds distinct from those of impeachment. The
Omnibus Election Code
former questions the validity of a public officer’s
appointment while the latter indicts him for so-
called impeachable offenses without questioning
his title to the office he holds [Republic v. Sereno,
G.R. No. 237428 (2018)]
2. A PUBLIC OFFICER who does or suffers an act, which,
by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for
forfeiture of office; or
3. An ASSOCIATION which acts as a corporation within
the Philippines without being legally incorporated or
without lawful
authority so to act. [Sec. 1, Rule 66]

When not proper

1. Against persons who usurp an office in a private
corporation [Calleja v. Panday, G.R. No. 168696
(2006)]
 Quo warranto in
electoral
Quo warranto under
proceedings [Sec.
Rule 66
253, Omnibus
Election Code]
Filed by whom

The
such OSG, office either
or
mandatory
position, arose [Sec.or
11, Rule 66]
discretionary, as
discussed below. Issue
OR
Issue is legality of the
occupancy of the Issue is eligibility of the
A office
personbyclaiming
virtue ofto a person elected.
belegal to a public Any voter
appointment.
entitled
office or position Grounds
usurped(against
or unlawfully
occupants of public offices)
held
a. or exercised
A person who by
another in his
usurps, intrudesown
name.into, or unlawfully
holds
[Sec. 5, Ruleor exercises
66]
a public office,
position or Where filed
franchise; or
When Commenced by a. Ineligibility, or
b. A public officer
Solicitor b. Disloyalty to the
who does or If against the election
General: Republic of the
suffers an act of a Member of
RTC Manila, CA, or Philippines
which, by the Congress, regional,
SC
provision of law, provincial or city
constitutes a officer, file in the
Otherwise:
ground for the
RTC with jurisdiction COMELEC
forfeiture of his
over office
the territorial
area If against a municipal
[Sec. 1, Rule 66]where or barangay officer,
respondent or any of
Effect
file in the appropriate
the respondents
When the RTC or MTC,
resides, CA, or SC respectively.
respondent is found
[Sec. 7, Rule 66] The occupant who
guilty of usurping,
was declared
intruding into, Periodor for filing
ineligible or disloyal
unlawfully holding or
Within one year after will be unseated but
exercising
the cause of public Within 10 days after
a such
the petitioner
proclamation of may be
office, or the
ouster, position
right ofor declared the rightful
franchise,
the petitioner to judgment
hold results
occupant of the office
shall be rendered that b. When Government Commences an Action
if the respondent is
such respondent be Against Individuals or Associations
disqualified and the
ousted and altogether
petitioner received
excluded therefrom,
the second number of
and that the petitioner
votes. [Maquiling v.
or relator, as the case
COMELEC, G.R.
may be, recover his
No. 195649 (2013)]
costs.
[Sec. 9, Rule 66]
The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, a. Must bring • He must aver and be able to show that he is entitled to
the action (MANDATORY) either the office in dispute, otherwise the action may be
i. When directed by the President, or dismissed at any stage. [General v. Urro, G.R. No.
ii. Upon complaint, where the OSG has good reason 191560 (2011)]
to believe that any of the cases in Sec. 1, Rule 66
A public utility may bring a quo warranto action against
exist. [Sec. 2,
another public utility which has usurped the rights of the
Rule 66]
former granted under a franchise. [Cui v. Cui, G.R. No.
b. May bring the action (DISCRETIONARY) 39773 (1934)]
i. At the request of another person, and
ii. With the permission of the court Contents of quo warranto petition
[Sec. 3, Rule 66] The petition shall set forth
a. The name of the person who claims to be entitled
thereto, if any,
b. With an averment of his right to the same and that
Individual
the respondent is unlawfully in possession thereof.
[Sec. 6, Rule 66]
Commence an Action
When quo warranto filed
An individual may commence the action if he claims to be General rule: An action for quo warranto must
entitled to the office or position usurped or unlawfully be
held or exercised by another. [Sec. 5, Rule 66]
of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose. [Sec. 11, Rule 66]
- The failure to institute the action within the reglementary period constitutes more than a sufficient basis for its dismissal
[Alejo v. Marquez, G.R. No. L-29053 (1971)], since it is not proper that the title to a public office be subjected to continued
uncertainty [Villegas v. De la Cruz, G.R.
No. L-23752 (1965)]

Exception: The prescriptive period does not apply if the failure to file the action can be attributed to acts of a responsible
government officer and not of the dismissed employee. [Romualdez-Yap v. CSC, et. al., G.R. No.
104226 (1993)]

The pendency of administrative remedies does not operate to suspend the period of 1 year within which a petition for quo
warranto should be filed. [Torres v. Quintos, G.R. No. L-3304
(1951)]

Reduction of period
The court may reduce the period provided by the ROC 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. 8, Rule 66]

d. Judgment in Quo Warranto Action

When 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:
a. Such respondent is ousted and altogether excluded therefrom; and
b. Petitioner, as the case may be, recovers
 his costs.

Note: Further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position, or franchise
of all parties to the action as justice requires.
[Sec. 9, Rule 66]

e. Rights of A Person Adjudged Entitled to Public Office

When judgment is rendered in favor of a person averred in the complaint to be entitled to the public office, such person may
take upon himself:
a. The execution of the office after taking the oath of office and executing any official bond required by the law;
b. Demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the respondent’s custody or control appertaining to the office to
which 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. [Sec. 10, Rule 66]

f. Limitations

Nothing contained in Rule 66 shall be construed:

a. To authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced
within 1 year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold office arose, nor
b. To allow the person entitled to the office to file for damages unless the action is commenced within 1 year after the entry
of judgement establishing the petitioner’s right to the office in question. [Sec. 11, Rule
66]

9. EXPROPRIATION
The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensable power of the State. Also called the power of expropriation, it
is described as the highest and most exact idea of property that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method
in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State [Manapat v.
CA, G.R. No. 110478 (2007)]

Requisites
1. The property taken must be private property;
2. There must be genuine necessity to take the private property;
3. The taking must be for public use;
4. There must be payment of just compensation; and
5. The taking must comply with due process of law.
[Manapat v. CA, G.R. No. 110478 (2007)]

There is taking when the expropriator enters private property not only for a momentary period but for a more permanent
duration for the purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such a manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all
the beneficial enjoyment thereof. [Republic v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 157847
(2005)]
Public use means public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of the general benefit, so that any
appropriation of private property by the State under its right of eminent domain, for purposes of great advantage to the
community, is a taking for public use. [Reyes v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No.147511
(2003)]

Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It is considered to
be a sum equivalent to the market value of the property, which is defined as the price fixed by the seller in the open market in
the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition. [2
Riano 284-285, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

When market value should be fixed:

a. If plaintiff takes possession before the institution of proceedings: value is fixed as of time of taking; or
b. If taking coincides with or is subsequent to the commencement of proceedings: value is fixed as of date of filing of the
complaint.
[Republic v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No.
L-14158 (1961)]

Where to file
File the complaint for expropriation in the RTC where property is located. The MTC has no jurisdiction since an action for
expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, G.R. No. 138816
(2000)]

a. Matters to Allege in Complaint

for Expropriation

The verified complaint shall

a. State with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation,
b. Describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and
c. 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.

Note: 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. 1, Rule 67]

b. Two Stages in Every Action for Expropriation

The first phase determines the propriety of the action. The second phase determines the compensation to be paid to the
landowner. [National Power Corporation v. Posada, G.R.
No. 191945 (2015)]

First stage: Propriety of expropriation

a. This stage involves the 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
b. Ends with an order of dismissal or order of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
property sought to be condemned, 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 filing of the complaint.
1. An order of dismissal, would be a final one, since it finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done
by the court on the merits.
2. So, too, would an order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter, as the ROC expressly states, in the
proceedings before the Trial Court, "no objection to the exercise of the right of condemnation (or the propriety
thereof) shall be filed or heard.” [National Power Corporation v. Posada, G.R. No. 191945 (2015)]

Note: 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.
[Sec. 4, Rule 67]

Second Stage: Just compensation

a. This stage involves the determination by the Court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken” with
the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners.
b. The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners would be
final, too. It would finally dispose of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the Court
regarding the issue. [National Power Corporation v.
Posada, G.R. No. 191945 (2015)]

c. When Plaintiff Can Immediately Enter Into Possession of Real

Property

The plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon possession of the real property upon:
a. Filing of complaint or at any time thereafter,
b. After due notice to defendant, and
c. Making a preliminary deposit [Sec. 2, Rule 67]

Preliminary deposit
If real property:
An amount equivalent to the
assessed value of the property for
purposes of taxation.
Value
If personal property:
Its value shall be provisionally
ascertained and the amount to be
deposited shall be promptly fixed
by the court.
With the authorized government
Where depository to be held by such bank
to deposit subject to the orders of the court.
 General rule: In money.

Exception: In lieu of money, the

court authorizes the deposit of a
Form of certificate of deposit of a
deposit government bank of the Republic
of the Philippines payable on
demand to the authorized
government depository.

The court shall order the sheriff or

other proper officer to forthwith
After place the plaintiff in possession of
deposit is the property involved and
made promptly submit a report thereof
to the court with service of copies
to the parties.
[Sec. 2, Rule 67]

d. New System of Immediate Payment of Initial Just

Compensation

R.A. 10752 (For national government infrastructure projects)

Republic Act 10752, also known as “The Right of Way Act” ensures that owners of real property acquired for national
government infrastructure projects are promptly paid just compensation for the expeditious acquisition of the required right-
of-way for the projects.

Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency
shall immediately deposit to the court in favor of the owner the amount equivalent to the sum of a. 100% of the value of the
land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR issued not more than 3 years prior to the filing of the
expropriation complaint
b. The replacement cost at current market value of the improvements and structures as determined by 1. The implementing
agency
2. A government financial institution with adequate experience in property appraisal, and
3. An independent property appraiser accredited by the BSP.
c. The current market value of crops and trees located within the property as determined by a government financial
institution or an independent property appraiser to be selected as indicated in Sec. 5(a)

Upon compliance with the guidelines above mentioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an
order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
[Sec. 6, R.A. 10752]

For non-government infrastructure projects If expropriation is engaged in by the national government for purposes other
than national infrastructure projects, the assessed value standard and deposit mode prescribed in Rule 67 continues to apply.
In such a case, the government is required only to make an initial deposit with an authorized government depository. [2
Riano 297-298, 2016 Bantam
Ed.]
 e. Defenses and Objections

With objection
No objection to taking to taking

What to file and serve

Notice of appearance and a Answer
manifestation
Period to file
Within the time stated in the summons
Contents
a. Specifically
designate
or identify
the
property in
which he
claims to
a. Manifestation to the have an
effect that he has no interest,
objection or defense b. State the
nature and
b. Specifically
extent of
designating/identifying
the interest
the property in which
claimed,
he claims to be
and
interested
c. Adduce all
his
objections
and
defenses to
the taking of
his property

Prohibited
Counterclaim,
cross- claim or
third-party
complaint in the
answer or any

subsequent
pleading
[Sec. 3, Rule 67]

Effect of failure to file answer The failure to file an answer does not produce all the disastrous consequences of default in
ordinary civil actions, because the defendant may still present evidence as to just compensation. [Robern Development Corp.
v.
Quitain, G.R. No. 135042 (1999)]

f. Order of Expropriation

When issued
a. If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or
b. When no party appears to defend as required by this Rule.
[Sec. 3, Rule 67]

Contents of order
The court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that:
a. The plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated,
b. For the public use or purpose described in the complaint,
c. 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. [Sec. 4, Rule 67]

Remedy of defendant
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.
• The order of condemnation is final. Hence, it is appealable. [Heirs of Alberto v. City of Mandaluyong, G.R. No. 135087
(2000)]

Note: Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be paid.
[Sec. 4, Rule 67]

g. Ascertainment of Just Compensation

Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than 3 competent and disinterested
persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property
sought to be taken. [Sec. 5, Rule 67]

Order of appointment
The order of appointment shall:
a. Designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners,
b. Specify the time within which the commissioners' report shall be submitted to the court,
c. Be served on the parties. [Sec. 5, Rule 67]

h. Appointment of
Commissioners;
Commissioner’s Report; Court Action Upon Commissioner's
Report

Qualifications
a. Competent; and
b. Disinterested. [Sec. 5, Rule 67]

Objection to the appointment Objections to the appointment of any of the commissioners shall be:
a. Filed with the court within 10 days from service, and
b. Resolved within 30 days after all the commissioners shall have received copies of the objections. [Sec. 5, Rule 67]

Duties of commissioners The commissioners shall:

a. 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.
• Unless the parties consent to the contrary.
b. 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.
• 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. 6, Rule 67]

Action by the court The court may:

1. Order the commissioners to report when any particular portion of the real estate shall have been passed upon by them,
and
2. Render judgment upon such partial report, and
3. 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 so deal with such
property. [Sec. 7, Rule 67]

Commissioners’ report
The commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings.
• Except as otherwise expressly ordered by the court, such reports shall be filed within 60 days from the date the
commissioners were notified of their appointment.
• Time for submission of the report may be extended at the discretion of the court.
• Upon the filing the report, the COC shall serve copies on all interested parties, with notice that they are allowed 10 days
within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire.

Note: The commissioners’ proceedings shall not be effectual until the court shall have accepted their report and rendered
judgment in accordance with their recommendations. [Sec. 7, Rule 67]
Action upon commissioner’s report
a. Upon the expiration of the period of 10 days for the filing of objections to the commissioner’s report, or
b. Before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their
statement of agreement,

The court may:

1. After hearing, 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
3. Set aside the report and appoint new commissioners, or
4. Accept the report in part and reject it in part.

The court may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the
1. Plaintiff - the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the
2. Defendant - just compensation for the property so taken.
[Sec. 8, Rule 67]

The appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory
requirement in expropriation cases. [2 Riano
301, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

i. Rights of Plaintiff Upon Judgment and Payment

The plaintiff shall have the right to:

a. Enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment, or
b. Retain it should he have taken immediate possession thereof under the provisions of Sec. 2, Rule 67.
[Sec. 10, Rule 67]

Note: Such rights of the plaintiff are not delayed by an appeal from the judgment. [Sec. 11, Rule
67]

When the rights arise

a. 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
b. After tender to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs. [Sec. 10, Rule
67]

When payment is to the court

If the ownership as to the property is uncertain or there are conflicting claims, the court may order that the payment be
made to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged to be entitled thereto. This is to enable the plaintiff to enter the
property or retain it. [Sec.
9, Rule 67]

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. 10,
Rule 67]

Effect of non-payment of just compensation Non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner to
recover possession of the expropriated lots. However, in cases where the government failed to pay just compensation within
5 years from the finality of judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover
possession of their property. [Yujuico v. Atienza, G.R. No. 164282
(2005)]

j. Effect of Recording Judgment

Contents of the judgment The judgment rendered shall state definitely:

a. By an adequate description, the particular property or interest therein expropriated, and
b. The nature of the public use or purpose for
which it is expropriated.
[Sec. 13, Rule 67]
When title to property vests
a. Personal property - upon payment of just
compensation. [Sec. 10, Rule 67]
b. Real property - Upon
1. Payment of just compensation; and
2. Registration of property (by recording of the judgment in the registry of deeds where the property is situated)
[Sec. 13, Rule 67]

10. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

Foreclosure of mortgage is the process by which a mortgagee acquires an absolute title to the property of which he had
previously been only the conditional owner, or upon which he had previously a mere lien or encumbrance.
[Benedicto v. Yulo, G.R. No. L-8106 (1913)]

Foreclosure is the necessary consequence of non-payment of mortgage indebtedness. The mortgage can be foreclosed only
when:
1. The debt remains unpaid at the time it is due [Producers Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 111584 (2001)], or
2. In case of default in the payment of obligation [PNB v. CA, G.R. No. 126908
(2003)]

The cause of action in a foreclosure suit is generally the non-payment of the mortgage loan, but it may be on other grounds
which under the contract warrant the foreclosure, such as the violation of the other conditions therein. [1 Regalado 852, 2010
Ed.]

a. Kinds of Foreclosure

i. Judicial Foreclosure

Judicial foreclosure is a mode of foreclosure that is done pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules of
Court. [2 Riano 313, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

ii. Extrajudicial Foreclosure

Extrajudicial foreclosure is a mode of foreclosure that is done pursuant to Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118. [ 2 Riano 313,
2016
Bantam Ed.]

Judicial foreclosure vs. Extrajudicial foreclosure

Judicial foreclosure Extrajudicial
foreclosure
Requires court No court intervention
intervention necessary
There is only an Right of redemption
equity of exists; mortgagor has a
redemption. [Huerta right to redeem the
 property within one
year from registration
Alba Resort, Inc. v. of the deed of sale.
CA, G.R. No. [Huerta Alba Resort,
128567 (2000)] Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
128567 (2000), citing
Act 3135]
Governed by Rule Governed by Act
68 3135
No deficiency
judgment because
There could be a there is no judicial
deficiency proceeding in the
judgment. [Sec. 6, foreclosure of the
Rule 68] mortgage itself. [1
Regalado 859, 2010
Ed.]
Deficiency judgment Recovery of deficiency
shall be rendered, on is through an
motion. [1 independent action. [1
Regalado 859, 2010 Regalado
Ed.] 859, 2010 Ed.]
Exception: Juridical
Exception: persons shall have the
Mortgagor may right to redeem until,
exercise right of but not after, the
redemption within registration of the
one year after the certificate of
sale, when the loan foreclosure sale with
or credit the Register of Deeds
accommodation is which in no case shall
granted by a bank be more than 3
[Sec. 47, R.A. 8791] months after
foreclosure,
whichever is earlier.
[Sec. 47, R.A. 8791]

b. Need for Special Power of Attorney

Extrajudicial foreclosure is the mode to be used if there is a special power inserted in the real estate mortgage contract
allowing an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Where there is no such special power, the foreclosure shall be done judicially
following Rule 68. [2 Riano 313,
2016 Bantam Ed.]
 c. Authority to Foreclose
Judicially

Nature of the action

An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage may be rightly considered as an action involving interest in real property, hence
a real
action. [2 Riano 312-313, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

Jurisdiction
Under BP 129, where the action is one involving title to, or possession of, real property, the determination of jurisdiction shall
be made by inquiring into the assessed value of the property. From this point of view, exclusive original jurisdiction would
fall either in the MTC or the RTC depending on the assessed value. [2 Riano 312-313, 2016
Bantam Ed.]

d. Procedure
Form
The complaint shall set forth:
a. The date and due execution of the mortgage;
b. Its assignments, if any;
c. The names and residences of the mortgagor and the mortgagee;
d. A description of the mortgaged property;
e. A statement of the date of the note or other documentary evidence of the obligation secured by the mortgage;
f. The amount claimed to be unpaid; and
g. The names and residences of all persons having or claiming an interest in the property subordinate in right to the holder
of the mortgage.
• Such persons shall be made defendants in the action.
[Sec. 1, Rule 68]

i. Where to File

Venue
A foreclosure action must be brought in the RTC of the province where the land or any part thereof is situated. If a mortgage
contract covers several distinct parcels of land situated in different provinces, the action may be brought in the RTC of any of
the provinces and the judgment will be enforceable against any of the parcels of land involved. [Monte de
Piedad v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. L-42928 (1936)]

ii. Where to Sell

In Judicial Foreclosure
When the defendant fails to pay the amount of the judgement ascertaining the amount due to the plaintiff upon the
mortgage debt, the court, upon motion, shall order the property to be sold in the manner and under the provisions of Rule
39 and other regulations governing sales of real estate under execution.
[Sec. 3, Rule 68]
Under Rule 39, the notice of sale shall specify the place, date, and exact time of the sale. The place of the sale may be agreed
upon by the parties.
In the absence of such agreement, the sale of real property shall be held in the office of the clerk of court in the RTC or MTC
which issued the writ, or which was designated by the appellate court. [Sec. 15, Rule 39]

In Extrajudicial Foreclosure
Said sale cannot be made legally outside of the province in which the property sold is situated; and in case the place within
said province in which the sale is to be made is subject to stipulation, such sale shall be made in said place or in the municipal
building of the municipality in which the property or part
thereof is situated. [Sec. 2, Act 3135]

iii. Posting Requirement

Judicial Foreclosure Requirement

Before the sale of real property, it is required that there be posting for 20 days in 3 public places, preferably in conspicuous
areas of the municipal or city hall, post office, and public market in the municipality or city where the sale is to take place.
Such notice must particularly describe the property and state where the
property is to be sold. [Sec 15(c), Rule 39]

Extrajudicial Foreclosure Requirement

Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than 20 days in at least 3 public places of the municipality or
city where
the property is situated. [Sec. 3, Act 3135]

Effect of failure to Post Notice

The failure to post a notice is not per se a ground for invalidating the sale provided that the notice thereof is duly published in
a newspaper of general circulation. [DBP v.
Aguirre, G.R. No. 144877 (2001)]

iv. Publication Requirement

1. Sufficiency of Newspaper
Publication

Judicial Foreclosure
If the assessed value of the property exceeds P50,000, one must also publish a copy of the notice once a week for 2
consecutive weeks in one newspaper having general circulation in the province or city. [Sec. 15(c), Rule 39] Extrajudicial
Foreclosure
If such property is worth more than P400, such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
municipality or city. [Sec. 3, Act 3135]

2. Need for Republication in Case of Postponement

During extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings under Act 3135, republication as well as reposting of the notice of sale is
required if the foreclosure does not proceed on the date originally intended. The lack of republication of the notice of the
foreclosure sale renders it void. [Metrobank v. Nikko, G.R. No. 178479,
(2009)]
3. Personal Notice to The Mortgagor When and When Not
Needed

Judicial foreclosure
The mortgagor is notified through the service of summons.
[Sec. 1, Rule 68]

Extrajudicial foreclosure
General Rule: Personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary, and posting and
publication will suffice.

Exception: When the parties stipulate that personal notice is additionally required to be given the mortgagor. Failure to abide
by the general rule, or its exception, renders the foreclosure proceedings null and void.
[Paradigm v. BPI, G.R. No. 191174 (2017)]

e. Possession by Purchaser of Foreclosed Property

Judicial Foreclosure
General Rule: Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the expiration of the period of redemption, the
purchaser at the auction sale or last redemptioner, if any, shall be entitled to the possession of the property.
• Order of confirmation; After the foreclosure sale, the mortgagee should file a motion for the confirmation of the sale.
Such requires notice and hearing. During the hearing, the mortgagor will be allowed to show why the sale should not be
confirmed. If, after such, the court finds ground to confirm, it shall issue the order of confirmation. [2 Riano 318-319,
2016 Bantam Ed.]
• Such order removes from the parties the right to the property, and grants such right to the purchaser, subject to
redemption. [2 Riano 319, 2016 Bantam Ed.] • Such order of confirmation is appealable.
[2 Riano 320, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

Exception: When a third party is actually holding the same adversely to the judgement obligor. In such a case, the purchaser
or the last redemptioner may secure a writ of possession, upon motion, from the court.
[Sec. 3, Rule 68]

Extrajudicial Foreclosure
The purchaser may petition the RTC of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him
possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a
period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage
or without complying with the requirements of this Act.
[Sec. 7, Act 3135]

f. Remedy of Debtor if Foreclosure is Not Proper

Judicial Foreclosure
The debtor-mortgagor is allowed the opportunity to show why the sale should not be confirmed during the hearing on the
motion of confirmation of the sale. [2 Riano 318,
2016 Bantam Ed.]
A failure to give notice of the hearing for motion of confirmation is good cause for setting aside the sale. [Grimalt v.
Velasquez, 36 Phil 936
(1917)]

Extrajudicial Foreclosure The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested, but not later than 30 days
after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of possession cancelled, specifying
the damages suffered by him, because the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in accordance with the
provisions hereof. [Sec. 8, Act 3135]

g. Redemption

There is no right of redemption in a judicial foreclosure under Rule 68. This right exists only in extrajudicial foreclosure
where there is always a right of redemption within one year from the date of sale, but interpreted by the court to mean one
year from the registration of the sale.

In judicial foreclosure, there is only an equity of redemption which can be exercised prior to the order of confirmation of the
foreclosure sale. This means that after the foreclosure sale but before its confirmation, the mortgagor may exercise his right
to pay the proceeds of the sale and prevent the confirmation of the sale.
• Exception: There is a right of redemption in a judicial foreclosure if the foreclosure is in favor of banks, as provided for in
the General Banking Law. [Sec. 47]

Equity of redemption vs. Right of redemption

Right of redemption
Equity of redemption

Right of defendant
mortgagor to extinguish
the mortgage and retain Right of the debtor,
ownership of the his successor in
property by paying the interest, or any
secured debt within the judicial creditor of
90 to 120-day period said debtor or any
after entry of judgment person having a lien
or even after the on the property
foreclosure sale but subsequent to the
prior to its confirmation mortgage.

Governed by Rule 68 Governed by Secs.

 29-31, Rule 39

Note: What Secs. 2-3, Rule 68 provide for is the mortgagor’s equity of redemption. This may be exercised by him even beyond
the period to pay the judgment obligation (i.e. 90-120 days) and even after the foreclosure sale itself, provided it be before
the order of the confirmation of sale. [Rosales v. Alfonso, G.R.
No. 137792 (2003)]

i. Who May Redeem

Judicial Foreclosure
The equity of redemption is the mortgagor’s equity to be able to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the
property. [2 Riano
316, 2016 edition]

Extrajudicial Foreclosure The debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor, or
any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may
redeem the same. [Sec. 6, Act 3135]

Note: The period for redemption in extrajudicial foreclosure is shortened when the mortgagor is a juridical person. The period
of redemption is “until but not after” the registration of certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds, “which in no case shall
be more than 3 months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier.” [2 Riano 317,
2016 Bantam Ed.]

ii. Amount of Redemption Price

In equity of redemption, the price that needs to be paid in order to retain ownership of the property and extinguish the
mortgage would be the debt amount. [2 Riano 317, 2016 Bantam
Ed.]
With respect to the right of redemption, the amount of the purchase price differs depending on whether the entity
redeeming is a bank or not.
1. Bank redemptioner - The redemption price shall be:
a. The amount due under the mortgage deed,
b. Interest rate specified in the mortgage, and
c. Expenses incurred by the bank from
the sale of the property.
2. Non-bank redemptioner - The redemption price shall be
a. Full amount paid by the purchaser,
b. 1% interest per month on the
purchase price, up to the time of redemption,
c. Taxes assessed that purchaser paid, and
d. Interest of 1% on the taxes assessed. [De Leon 557, Comments and Cases on Credit
Transactions, 2016 Ed.]
 iii. Period for Redemption

Right of
Equity of redemption
redemption
Period is 1 year
Period is 90-120 days
from date of
after entry of judgment
registration of
or even after
certificate of sale.
foreclosure sale but prior
to confirmation.

iv. Effect of Pendency of Action for Annulment of Sale

The pendency of a suit for annulment of the foreclosure proceedings does not defeat the right of the purchaser to a writ of
possession to which the purchaser becomes entitled to as a matter of right.

Note: An injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the writ is entirely out of place. [Carpo v.
Chua, 471 SCRA 471 (2005)]

h. Writ of Possession

The writ of possession is a means of recognizing and enforcing the rights of the purchaser, since the confirmation of the
foreclosure sale operates to divest all parties to the action of their rights in the property and vests them in the purchaser. [ 2
Riano 320,
2016 Bantam Ed.]

i. Ministerial Duty of the Court

The purchaser shall be entitled to a writ of possession upon:

a. Finality of the order of confirmation, or
b. Expiration of the period for redemption.

Such writ shall be issued upon motion. Hence the purchaser or last redemptioner must file a motion for the issuance of a writ
of possession.
[2 Riano 320, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

ii. Enforcement Against Third Parties

The obligation of a court to issue a writ of possession ceases to be ministerial when a third-party in possession of the
property claims a right that is adverse to that of the debtormortgagor.

Remedy
Where such third party claim and possession exist, the trial court should conduct a hearing to determine the nature of the
adverse possession. [Barican v. IAC, G.R. No. 79906, (1988)] Such is the case because a third party cannot be dispossessed on
the strength of a mere possessory writ. [De Leon 589, Comments and Cases on Credit Transactions,
2016 Ed.]

iii. Pendency of action for annulment

of sale

A pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or annulment of the foreclosure proceedings does not defeat the right of the
purchaser to a writ of possession to which the purchaser is entitled to as a matter of right. An injunction to prohibit the
issuance or enforcement of the writ is entirely out of place. [Carpo v. Chua,
G.R. No. 150773, (2005)]

i. Annulment of Sale

See discussion on 6. Remedy of debtor if foreclosure not proper.

11. PARTITION
Definition
Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a
thing held in common among those to whom it may
belong. Every act which is intended to put an end to
indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is
deemed to be a partition. [Marcos v. Heirs of Isidro Bangi,
G.R. No. 185745 (2014)]
Partition may be:
1. Judicial – Procedure is Rule 69
2. Extrajudicial – No court intervention is required
Nothing in Rule 69 contained shall be construed so as to
restrict or prevent persons holding real estate jointly or in
common from making an amicable partition thereof by
agreement and suitable instruments of conveyance
without recourse to an action.
[Sec. 12, Rule 69]
Nature
An action for partition and accounting under Rule 69 is in
the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such action is
essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s
interest in a specific property and not to render a
judgment against him. [Valmonte v. CA, G.R. No. 108538
(1996)]
When partition can be done
General rule: Prescription does not run in favor of a co-
owner or co-heirs as long as there is a recognition of the
co-ownership, expressly
or impliedly. [2 Riano 416, 2012 Bantam Ed.]
Exception: If a co-owner asserts adverse title to the
property, in which case, the prescription period runs from
such time of assertion of the adverse title. [De Castro v.
Echarri, G.R. No.
5609 (1911)]

a. Who May File Complaint; Who Should Be Made

Defendants Who should be made defendants
All other persons interested in the property.
Who may file [Sec. 1, Rule 69]
A person having the right to compel the
partition of real estate. [Sec. 1, Rule 69] Jurisdiction
The courts with jurisdiction over the action for partition
are the MTC or the RTC depending on the value of the
property. If the value of the property is below such
threshold, then the MTC has jurisdiction. If the value is
greater, then the RTC has jurisdiction.
b. Matters to Allege in the
Complaint for Partition
d. Demand for accounting of the rents, profits, and other
income from the property to which he may be
entitled to as his share [Sec. 8, Rule 69] Since these
cannot be demanded in another action (because they
are part of the cause of action for partition), they are
barred if not set up. [2 Riano 420,
2012 Bantam Ed.]
c. Two Stages in Every Action for Partition
First stage - Determination of the propriety of partition
This involves a determination of whether the subject
property is owned in common and whether all the co-
owners are made parties in the case. [Lacbayan v.
Samoy, G.R. No.
165427 (2011)]
The order may also require an accounting of rents and
profits recovered by the defendant.
[Miranda v. CA, G.R. No. L-33007 (1976)]
Remedy
A final order decreeing partition and accounting may be
appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. [Sec. 2, Rule
69]
If not appealed, then the parties may partition the
common property in the way they want. If they cannot
agree, then the case goes into the second stage.
However, the order of accounting may in the meantime
be executed.
e. Partition by Commissioners;
Appointment of
Commissioners,
Commissioner’s Report; Court
a. The nature and extent of his title;
b. Adequate description of the real estate of
which partition is demanded; and
c. Join as defendants all other persons interested in the
property.
[Sec. 1, Rule 69]
[De Mesa v. CA, G.R. No.109387 (1994)]
Second stage - Actual partitioning of the subject property
There can be no partition again because there is no more
common property. [Noceda v. CA,
G.R. No. 119730 (1999)]
The action for partition is subject to multiple appeals and
would require a record on appeal. [Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila v. CA, G.R. No. 77425 (1991)]
d. Order of Partition and Partition
by Agreement
Order of partition
If after the trial the court finds that the plaintiff has the
right thereto, it shall order the partition of the real estate
among all the parties in
interest. [Sec. 2, Rule 69]
Partition by agreement
a. The parties may, if they are able to agree, make the
partition among themselves by proper instruments of
conveyance,
b. The court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon
by all the parties, and
c. Such partition, together with the order of the court
confirming the same, shall be recorded in the registry
of deeds of the place in which the property is
situated. [Sec. 2, Rule 69]
Action Upon Commissioner’s
Report
When proper
When the parties are unable to agree upon the
partition. [Sec. 3, Rule 69]

Action of the court
a. The court shall appoint not more than 3 competent
and disinterested persons as commissioners to make
the partition,
b. Commanding them to set off to the plaintiff and to
each party in interest such part and proportion of the
property as the court shall direct. [Sec. 3, Rule 69]
Oath of commissioners
Before making such a partition, 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.
[Sec. 4, Rule 69]
Duties of commissioners
a. View and examine the real estate, after due notice to
the parties to attend at such view and examination,
b. Hear the parties as to their preference in the portion
of the property to be set apart to them and the
comparative value thereof, and
c. Set apart the same to the parties in lots or parcels as
will be most advantageous and equitable, having due
Commissioner’s report
a. The commissioners shall make a full and accurate
report to the court of all their proceedings as to the
partition, or the assignment of real estate to one of
the parties, or the sale of the same.
b. Upon the filing of such a report, the COC shall serve
copies thereof on all the interested parties with notice
that they are allowed 10 days within which to file
objections to the findings of the report, if they so
desire.
Note: No proceeding had before or conducted by the
commissioners shall pass the title to the property or bind
the parties until the court shall have accepted the report
of the commissioners and rendered judgment thereon.
[Sec. 6, Rule 69]
Hearing on the report
a. Upon the expiration of the period of 10 days to file
objections, or
regard to the improvements, situation and quality of
the different parts thereof.
[Sec. 4, Rule 69]
Note: The provision authorizes the commissioners merely
to make or effect the partition. It does not grant them the
authority to adjudicate on questions of title or ownership.
[1
Riano 424, 2012 Bantam Ed.]
Assignment of real estate to one party General rule:
When it is made to appear to the commissioners that the
real estate, or a portion thereof, cannot be divided
without prejudice to the interests of the parties, the court
may order it assigned to one of the parties willing to take
the same, provided he pays to the other parties such
amounts as the commissioners deem equitable.
Exception: If one of the interested parties asks that the
property be sold instead of being so assigned, in which
case the court shall order the commissioners to sell the
real estate at public sale under such conditions and within
such time as the court may determine.
[Sec. 5, Rule 69]
b. Even before the expiration of such period but after
the interested parties have filed their objections to
the report or their statement of agreement therewith,
the court may
1. Upon hearing, 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
3. Set aside the report and appoint new
commissioners, or
4. Accept the report in part and reject it in part.
The court may make such order and render such judgment
as shall effectuate a fair and just partition of the real
estate, or of its value, if assigned or sold as above
provided, between the several owners thereof.
[Sec. 7, Rule 69]
f. Judgment and Its Effects

Contents of judgment
Effects of judgment

If actual partition is properly made

Judgment shall state definitely, by metes and
bounds and adequate description,
the particular portion of the real
estate assigned to each Judgment shall vest in each party to the action in
party severalty the portion of the real estate assigned to him

If the whole property is assigned to one of the parties after payment

Judgment shall vest in the party making the payment the

whole of the real estate free from any interest on the
part of the other parties to the action
Judgment shall state the fact of such payment
and of the assignment of the real estate to the
party making the payment

If the property is sold and the sale confirmed by the court

Judgment shall vest the real estate in the purchaser or

purchasers making the payment or payments, free from
the claims of any of the parties to the
Judgment shall state the name of the
purchaser or purchasers and a definite action
description of the parcels of real estate sold to
each purchaser

[Sec. 11, Rule 69]

A certified copy of the judgment shall

in either case be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the real estate is situated, and the expenses of such
recording shall be taxed as part of the costs of the action. [Sec.
11, Rule 69]
g. Partition of Personal Property
The provisions of Rule 69 shall apply to partitions of
estates composed of personal property, or of both real
and personal property, in so far as the same may be
applicable [Sec.
13, Rule 69]
h. Prescription of Action
General rule:
i. When Partition is Not Allowed
The following instances are cases when a coowner cannot
demand partition, to wit:
a. There is an agreement among the coowners to keep
the property undivided for a certain period of time
not exceeding 10 years. The term may however be
extended by a new agreement. [Art. 494, Civil Code]
b. When partition is prohibited by the donor or testator
for a period not exceeding 20 years. [Art. 494, Civil
Code]
The right of action to demand partition does not
prescribe. [De Castro v. Echarri, G.R. No.
5609 (1911)]
Exception:
Where one of the interested parties openly and adversely
occupies the property without recognizing the co-
ownership [Cordova v. Cordova, G.R. No. L-9936 (1958)]
Note: If a co-owner repudiates the coownership and
makes known such repudiation to the other co- owners,
then partition is no longer a proper remedy of the
aggrieved coowner. He must file an accion reivindicatoria,
which is prescriptible. [Roque v. IAC, G.R. No.
75886 (1988)]
c. When a partition is prohibited by law. [Art
494, Civil Code]
d. When the property is not subject to a physical division
and to do so would render it unserviceable for the use
for which it is intended. [Art. 495, Civil Code]
e. When the condition imposed upon voluntary heirs
before they can demand partition has not yet been
fulfilled. [Art.
1084, Civil Code]