Rule 62

Interpleader

1. Conflicting claims
2. Uninterested party or interest undisputed

Makati Development v Tanjautco

The subject matter of the case of interpleader remains to be the “thing in dispute” and the “right to compel
the litigants.

Wack Wack Golf and Country Club v Won

In an interpleader, the applicant must be able to show that he has not been made independently liable to any
of the claimants.
 In this case, the corporation is already held liable to Lee after a final judgment in a separate civil
action where Tan is not impleaded.

Beltran v People’s Homesite

While two defendant corporations may have conflicting claims as to the management, administration and
ownership of Project 4, such are not against the plaintiffs.
 No allegation is made that any corporation other than PHCC ever made a demand for payment of
rental or amortization payments from them.

Rizal Commercial Bank v Metro

The unlawful detainer case is limited to question of physical and material possession and is not in any way
related to the conflicting claims of ownership between LEYCON and RCBC.

Lui Enterprises v Zuellig Pharma

The Rules does not prohibit a party in an interpleader case be held in default.

Rule 63
Declaratory Relief

City of Lapu-Lapu v PEZA

Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief,
the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action.
 In this case, the City already issued demand letter and assessed the real property tax of the
respondent.

Aquino v Malay
Since the violation of his rights by the executive Order already happened with the EO’s enforcement and
implementation, then a Petition for declaratory relief is no longer available.

Reyes v Ortiz
In this case, petitioners assailed via Declaratory Relief, the orders of the trial courts denying their motions to
suspend proceedings. This is not allowed as such subject is not those enumerated under Rule 63.

Customs v Hypermix
The requirement for declaratory relief are the following:
(1) There must be a justiciable controversy
(2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse
 (3) The party seeking relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and
(4) The issues involved are ripe for judicial determination.

After petitioners demanded payment of adjusted rentals and in the months that followed, respondent
complied with the terms and conditions set forth in their contract of lease by paying the rentals stipulated
therein. Respondent religiously fulfilled its obligations to petitioners even during the pendency of the present
suit. There is no showing that respondent committed an act constituting a breach of the subject contract of
lease. Thus, respondent is not barred from instituting before the trial court the petition for declaratory relief.

Monetary Board v Veterans Bank

The Court held that in the same manner that court decisions cannot be the proper subjects of a petition for
declaratory relief, decisions of quasi-judicial agencies cannot be subjects of a petition for declaratory relief
for the simple reason that if a party is not agreeable to a decision either on questions of law or of fact, it may
avail of the various remedies provided by the Rules of Court.

Rule 64
Review of Judgments of COMELEC and COA

Querubin v COMELEC
This case involves the bidding for the vote counting machines to be used in the elections. Smartmatic won
the bid and the petitioner questioned the validity of the bid. The COMELEC En Banc dismissed the petition
which prompted the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 64.
 Rule 64 does not cover rulings of the COMELEC in the exercise of its administrative powers. It is
limited only to those rendered in the commissions' exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.

Repol v COMELEC
Only final orders of the COMELEC Division may be raised before the COMELEC En Banc.

Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC

Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for all acts of the COMELEC. Rule 65 is applicable specially to raise
objections relating to a grave abuse of discretion resulting in the ouster of jurisdiction.
 Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and
prohibition. It also has its expanded jurisdiction under Art. VIII, Sec. 1. Certainly, a breach of the
fundamental right of expression by COMELEC is grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the constitutionality
of the Notice and Letter coming from COMELEC is within this Court’s power to review

Bulilan v COA
Succinct is the provision of Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines that
decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court prescribes such a remedy.

Rule 65
Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus

Rule 66
Quo Warranto
Rule 67
Expropriations

Rule 68
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

Rule 69
Partition

Rule 70
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Rule 71
Contempt