Special Civil Actions

Note: Cases with smaller font size will not be discussed in class but you are expected to read them.

0. Nature, Purpose, Kinds, Jurisdiction of SCA

I. Interpleader (Rule 62)

A. Read Sections 1-7, Rule 62

B. Nature and Purpose
C. Requisites
D. Distinguished from Intervention and from Consignation
E. Cases:
i. Mesina v. IAC, 145 SCRA 497 (1986)
ii. Pasricha v. Don Luis Dizon Realty, Inc. 548 SCRA 273
iii. Ocampo v. Tirona, 455 SCRA 62
iv. Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club v. Won, 70 SCRA 165
v. Vlasons Ent. Corp. v. CA, 155 SCRA 186 (1987)
vi. Vda. De Camilo v. Arcamo, 3 Phil. 146
vii. Makati Dev’t. Corp. v. Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA 401 (1969)
viii. Beltran v. PHCC, 29 SCRA 145

II. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (Rule 63)

A. Read Sections 1-6, Rule 63

B. Cases:
i. Edades v. Edades, 99 Phil 675 (1956)
ii. Santos v. Aquino, 94 Phil 65 (1953)
iii. Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827 (1968)
iv. Baguio Citizen’s Action, Inc. v. The City Council, 121 SCRA 368
v. Galicto v. Aquino III, 667 SCRA 150 (2012)
vi. Province of Camarines Sur v. CA, 600 SCRA 569
vii. Meralco v. Phil. Consumers Foundation, Inc. 374 SCRA 262
viii. Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc. 542 SCRA 470
E. Similar Remedies

III. Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA
(Rule 64)
A. Read Rule 64 and Rule 65
B. Distinction in the application of Rule 65 to judgments of the COMELEC and
COA and the application of Rule 65 to other tribunals, persons and officers
C. Cases
i. Aratuc v. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251
ii. Reyna v. COA, 642 SCRA 210
iii. Pates v. COMELEC, June 30, 2009
iv. Sanchez v. COA, G.R. No. 127545, April 23, 2008
 v. Ambil, Jr v. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358

IV. Rule 65 - Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

A. Read Sections 1-9, Rule 65
B. Concept and Purpose
C. Distinctions
i. Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
ii. Prohibition vs. Injunction
iii. Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 vs. Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65
iv. Certiorari from Appeal
D. Cases:
i. Ganaden Al v. Lanag, GR No. 170500&17051011, June 1, 2011
ii. Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 629 (1998)
iii. Dela Cruz v. IAC, 134 SCRA 417 (1985)
iv. People v. Ramos, 83 SCRA 1 (1978)
v. Bautista v. Sarmiento, 128 SCRA 587 (1987)
vi. Vda. De Bacang v. CA, 125 SCRA 137 (1983)
vii. Santiago v. CA, 184 SCRA 590 (1990)
viii. Calderon v. Solicitor-General, 215 SCRA 876 (1992)
ix. Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v. CA, 219 SCRA 69 (1993)
x. Spouses Marcelo v. LBC Bank, GR No. 183575, April 11, 2011
xi. Mari & People v. Gonzales, GR No. 187728, Sept. 12, 2011
xii. Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution Inc., GR No. 162575, Dec. 15, 2010
xiii. Martillano v. CA, GR No. 148277, June 29, 2004
xiv. Santos v. Orda, GR No. 189402, May 6, 2010
xv. China Banking Corp. v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corp., GR No.
172880, August 11, 2010
xvi. Winston Garcia v. CA, GR No. 169005, January 28, 2013
Additional cases
1. Galicto v. Aquino, 667 SCRA 150, Feb
2. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. National Wages Productivity Commission, 514
SCRA 346
3. City Engineer of Baguio v. Baniqued, 571 SCRA 617
4. Destileria Limtuaco & Co. Inc. v. Advertising Board of the Phil., 572 SCRA 455 –
prohibition not for private individuals
5. Spouses Yusay v. CA, 647 SCRA 269
6. Militante vs. CA, 330 SCRA 318
7. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, 615 SCRA 666
8. Araos v. Regala, 613 SCRA 207
9. Lumapas v. Tamin, 334 SCRA 391
10. Cuatro v. Ombudsman 658 SCRA 580

E. Proceedings where certiorari is not available to question interlocutory orders

- amparo, habeas data, small claims, summary procedure
V. Quo Warranto
I. Nature and purpose
II. Parties who may commence the petition
III. Distinctions
a. quo warranto from mandamus
b. quo warranto for elective officers from quo warranto for appointive officers
c. quo warranto from election contest
IV. Period for filing
V. Judgement, post-judgment
VI. Cases
a. Campos v. Degamo, 6 SCRA 235 (1962)
b. Sison v. Pangramuyen, 84 SCRA 364 (1978)
c. Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez, 239 SCRA 11 (1994)
d. Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. 584 SCRA 213
e. Liban v. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68
f. Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645
g. Cuevas v. Bacal, 347 SCRA 338
h. Cuyegkeng v. Cruz, 108 Phil. 1147
i. Celestial v. Cachopero, 413 SCRA 469
j. Fernandez v. HRET, 608 SCRA 733

VI. Expropriation (Rule 67)

I. Rule 67, Sec. 1-14
II. Power of eminent domain as an inherent power of the State
III. Sec. 9, Art. III, 1987 Constitution
IV. Concept of “public use”
a. Vda. De Ouano v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384
b. Abad v. Fil-Homes Realty and Dev’t. Corp., 636 SCRA 247
V. Stages in the expropriation process
VI. Just Compensation
a. National Power Corp. v. Dela Cruz, 514 SCRA 56
b. Benguet Consolidated v. Republic, 143 SCRA 466

VII. Read RA 8974

a. Republic v. Gingoyon, 478 SCRA 474

VIII. Cases:
a. City of Manila v. Arellano Law Colleges, 85 Phil 663
b. EPZA v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305
c. Manila Electric Company v. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196
d. San Diego v. Valdellon, 80 SCRA 305
e. Republic v. Sarabia, 468 SCRA 142

VII. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68)

I. Extra-judicial foreclosure - Read Act 3135

- Distinguish Judicial foreclosure v. extrajudicial foreclosure
 II. Judicial foreclosure
III. Post-judgment procedures; deficiency judgment
IV. Confirmation of sale; effects
V. Pactum Commissorium
VI. Right of redemption v. Equity of redemption
VII. Cases
a. Rehabilitation Finance Corp. v. Alto Surety, 107 Phil 387 (1960)
b. Tiglao v. Botones, 90 Phil 275 (1951)
c. GSIS v. CFI of Iloilo, 175 SCRA 19 (1989)
d. Cruz v. IAC, 169 SCRA 9 (1989)
e. Kho v. CA, 203 SCRA 160 (1991)
f. Roxas v. CA, 221 SCRA (1993)
g. San Jose v. CA, 225 SCRA 450 (1993)
h. IFC v. Apostol, GR No. L-35453, Sept. 15, 1989

VIII. Partition (Rule 69)

I. Nature and purpose

a. Roque v. IAC, 165 SCRA 118
II. Partition under the Civil Code
III. Instances when partition of among co-owners is not allowed
IV. Jurisdiction
V. Stages in Partition; Modes of partition
VI. Cases
a. Fabrica v. CA, 146 SCRA 250
b. Garingan v. Garingan, 455 SCRA 480
c. Lacbayan v. Samoy, 645 SCRA 677
d. Heirs of Ureta, Sr. v. Heirs of Ureta

IX. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70)

I. Distinguish Forcible Entry from Unlawful detainer as to nature and

As to respective elements and allegations
II. Nature of the procedure
III. Review accion publiciana and accion reinvidicatoria
IV. When Demand is required and not required in Unlawful detainer
V. Rule on the issue of ownership
VI. Cases
a. Francel Realty v. CA, 252 SCRA 127
b. Javier v. Veridiano, 237 SCRA 565
c. Baens v. CA, 125 SCRA 634
d. Penas Jr v. CA, 233 SCRA 744
e. Lim Kieh Tong v. CA, 195 SCRA 398
f. German Management v. CA, 177 SCRA 495
g. Bandoy v. CA, 175 SCRA 459
h. Petran v. Presiding Judge, L-57259, Oct. 13, 1983
 i. City of Manila v. CA, 149 SCRA 183
Buenaventura v. Halili-Uy, 149 SCRA 22
San Pedro v. CA, 235 SCRA 145
Azcuna Jr. v. CA, 255 SCRA 215
CLutario v. CA, 216 SCRA 341
Once v. Gonzales, 76 SCRA 258
Pharma Industries Inc v. Pajarillaga, 100 SCRA 339

X. Contempt (Rule 71)

I. Meaning of contempt of court

II. Distinguish direct contempt from indirect contempt
II. Contempt against quasi-judicial entities
III. Cases
a. Ang v. Castro, 136 SCRA 453
b. People v. Torio, 118 SCRA 17
c. Cabilan v. Ramolete, 192 SCRA 674
d. Pascua v. Heirs of Simeon, 161 SCRA 1
e. Barrete v. Amila, 230 SCRA 219
Santiago v. Anunciacion, Jr., 184 SCRA 118