VIII C

### Viuda de Camilo v. Aranio,

-X and Y have different foreshore lands with their own buildings. Buildings were
burnt. Rebuilding both structures, X and Y filed encroachment cases against the
other. P as lessee of X's building, filed interpleader against X and Y.
-No cause of action. Petitioners didnt have conflicting claims (different areas).
SEC 1

### Wack Golf v. Lee Won,

-X and Y are claiming ownership of membership. Golf club filed interpleader,
conflicting claims.
-Dismissed. Club allowed civil case to continue to final judgment. Interplead
cannot prosper

### Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Metro Container Corporation,

-X loan to ABC, collateral bldg. Foreclose. ABC acquired ownership of X's bldg,
demand rental from Y. Y rents from Leycon, lessor of X. X filed unlawful detainer.
-Interpleader between Leycon & ABC, rents. MTC civil case ongoing and finalized.
Interpleader for dismissal?, finality of civil case.

### Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank

-70M X->Y->Z Central Bank Bills. Z->Y Treasury Bills. Z moved against transfer of
central bank bills. Y informed BSP of such claim - denied, Y filed an action to
determine who is entitled of Central Bank Bills. Initiate interpleader through
answer.
-Valid. Can file on answer w/ counter complaint, cross-claim.etc

### Ocampo v. Tirona,

-X own land, Y lessee, land also under area of priority development. Y stop paying
rent, files interpleader to NHA to resolve whom shall Y pay rent.
-Lessee does not know who to pay. Dont wait for ejectment, file interplaeder dayon.

### Pasricha v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc.

-X lessee to Y's bldg. Transacted to A gen manager, replaced by B. X confused who
to pay A or B.
-Dont refuse, interplead. Sec 1 rule 62

VIII.H
### Maglente v. Hon. Baltazar-Padilla
-X lessor, Y lessee w/ first refusal if sold. Y subleased to Z. X wants to sell to
Y but Z also wants to buy. Interpleader by X. Y won and moved for issuance of writ
of possession
-No. Execution of interpleader does not carry writ of possession.

IX.C Declaratory Relief - where to file

### Imbong v Ochoa
-14 Petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed in SC, assailing
constitutionality of Responsible & Reproductive Health Act. Resp says dismiss
because are declaratory relief, SC no jurisdiction
-Far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive reliefs, considered as petition
for prohibition under Rule 65.

### Malana v Tappa

-X filed quieting of title vs Y,RTC. Dismiss due to no jurisdction, low value.
Alleged Rule 63 in RTC, quieting.
-No. MTC has jurisdiction due to value.

### Ombudsman vs Ibay

-Ombuds ordered X, manager of Y bank, produce docs. Ombuds had power to examine
bank records. X filed declaratory relief in RTC regarding right to divulge info.
Ombuds file to dismiss,(SC by law 6770).
-Denied. Rule 63 says RTC exclusive.

### Llana v Alba

-BP 129. Judge filed declaratory relief, contravenes constitutional provision of
security of tenure of judges
-CFI not SC for rule 63.

IX. D Requisites
### Almeda vs Bathala
X lessor with Y. Contract provides, new assessment of land w/ new tax, shouldered
by X. Y then increased lease due to VAT. X contends cannot be due to VAT existing
already on signing of contract. X refused to pay new amount but paid old amount,
instituted declaratory relief for interpretation.
-Yes,Proper. X fulfilled obligations, no breach of contract or no civil case
resolved.

Reqs
-subject
-doubtful terms, require judicial construction
-no breach of documents in questions
-actual justiceable controversy
-issue for judicial determination
-no adequate relief available through other means

### Edades v Edades

-X action for declaratory relief on heriditary rights and recognition of status as
illegitimate son. Defendants move to dismiss,no cause of action,granted.
-Not proper action, declaratory relief.
-not concerns a deed,will, contract, statute
-no justiceable controversy, for alleged rights of inheritance, testator still
alive :D

### Tolentino v Board of accountancy

-X filed declaratory relief in CFI, constitutionality of trade name used by
accountants and not with other professions.
-No sufficient cause of action. Plaintiff seeks relief not for his own personal
benefit. No actual justiciable controversy
REQS:
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
controversy; and
(4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.