SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Comparison
Ordinary Civil Action
• Civil Action is one by which
a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection
of a right or the prevention
or redress of a wrong.
Special Civil Action
• Special Civil Action is an
action the purpose of w/c is
to establish a status, a right,
or a particular fact.

Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions,

subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
Distinctions

As to requirement of cause of action

•While an ordinary civil action (OCA) must always be based on a cause of action (i.e.,
an act or omission by w/c a party violates the rights of another), such is not always
required in special civil actions (SCA). For example, in petitions for declaratory relief,
the plaintiff has sustained no actual transgression of his rights. In interpleader, the
plaintiff claims to interest in the subject matter of the action.

As to venue
•In OCA, venue is the residence of either party if it’s a personal action, or the location
of the property if it’s a real action. This does not always apply in SCA. For example, the
venue of quo warranto petitions filed before the SC or CA is the place where these
courts sit. However, if the quo warranto petition is filed before an RTC, the venue is the
residence of the respondent or any of the respondents and NOT of the petitioner (Sec
7, Rule 66).

As to Jurisdictional amount
•OCA may be filed either with the MTC or the RTC depending on the jurisdictional
amount or nature of the action involved. For SCA, there are those which can only be
filed before the MTCs like forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases.
 INTERPLEADER (RULE 62)
An action for interpleader is not proper to circumvent a final and executory
judgment. A successful litigant who has secured a final judgment in its favor
cannot later be impleaded by its defeated adversary in an interpleader suit and
compelled to prove its claim anew against other adverse claimants, as that
would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment. In other words, an
action for interpleader may not be utilized to circumvent the immutability of a
final and executory judgment. It is settled that when a decision has attained
finality, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.. Bureau of Internal
Revenue vs. TICO Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204226, April 18, 2022, J.
Hernando

An adverse claimant in an interpleader case may be declared in default under

S5 R62. The Rules would not have allowed claimants in interpleader cases to be
declared in default if it would “ironically defeat the very purpose of the suit.”
(Lui Enterprises v Zuellig Pharma, 12 March 2014).
 DECLARATORY RELIEF
Validity of tax assessments is NOT a subject matter of
declaratory relief. To begin with, Commonwealth Act No. 55 (CA
55) provides that petitions for declaratory relief do not apply to
cases where a taxpayer questions his liability for the payment of
any tax under any law administered by the BIR. XXX Thus, the
courts have no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief
against the imposition of tax liability or validity of tax
assessments. Respondent's Petition for Declaratory Relief is
utilized as a vehicle to assail and prevent the enforcement of the
tax assessments by alleging the supposed unconstitutionality of
Sections 108 and 184 of the NIRC. On this basis, the RTC should
have dismissed respondent's petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Standard Insurance Co.,
Inc., G.R. No. 219340 (Resolution), April 28, 2021, J. Hernando
Private respondents filed their Amended Petition based on acts
already committed or being committed by the Big 3, which they
believe are in violation of the RPC and RA 8479. It appears therefore
that the filing of the Amended Petition was done on the assumption
that there was already a breach or violation on the part of the Big 3,
which cannot be the subject of a declaratory relief. It must be
stressed that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that
there has been no actual breach as such action is filed only for the
purpose of securing an authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a contract, deed, or statute. It
cannot be availed of if the statute, deed, or contract has been
breached or violated because, in such a case, the remedy is for the
aggrieved party to file the appropriate ordinary civil action in court.
Thus, the Court ruled that if adequate relief is available through
another form or action or proceeding, the other action must be
preferred over an action for declaratory relief. Commission on Audit
vs. Pampilo, Jr., G.R. Nos. 188760, 189060 & 189333, June 30, 2020,
J. Hernando
Ordinance imposing regulatory fee, not a tax or revenue
measure. Hence need not be appealed to Sec. of Justice.
Declaratory relief is the right remedy to challenge ordinance
proper. (City of Cagayan de Oro v. CEPALCO, 17 Oct 2018,
Reyes, J.).

In petition for declaratory relief questioning constitutionality

of a law, the Republic need not be impleaded. Mere notice to
OSG is sufficient. (Zomer Dev’t Co. v. CA, 7 Jan 2020, e.b.,
Leonen, J.).

R65 petitions are not per se remedies to address

constitutional issues. Declaratory relief proper when
questions of validity or constitutionality cannot be resolved
in a factual vacuum. (Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, 3 Sep
2019, e.b., Leonen, J.)
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS
(RULE 65)
What is certiorari?
 an extra-ordinary remedy by w/c an aggrieved person
prays for a judgment annulling or modifying the
proceedings of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions on the ground that such
tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess
of its/his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
Nature, Purpose and Function of Certiorari

Also called a “prerogative writ”, certiorari is never demandable as a matter of

right.

it is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last resort. Its principal office
is only to keep the inferior court w/in the parameters of its jurisdiction.
Certiorari will only issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure
or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as the
court a quo acts w/in its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its jurisdiction will amount to nothing more than mere errors of
judgment, correctible by an appeal.
The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of
jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In this regard, mere abuse of discretion is
not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ. The abuse of discretion must
be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a
positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in
contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as
to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

 it is an original and independent action. It is not part of the proceedings

that resulted in the order assailed, even if the petition is filed in a higher
court. Not being part of the proceeding that resulted in the order assailed,
the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a TRO
or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public
respondent from further proceeding with the case.
 Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
vs Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
Petition for Review on Certiorari
(a.k.a. Appeal by Certiorari) Petition for Certiorari

As to governinglaw Rule 45 Rule 65

As to nature A mode of appeal. Appeal is a mere An original and independent action.
continuation of the original suit. Certiorari is not part of the proceedings
that resulted in the order assailed.

As to effect of filing Appeal stays the judgment Does not interrupt the judgment or the
appealed from course of the principal case, unless a TRO
or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued

As to where filed Supreme Court only SC, CA, RTC (subject to doctrine of
hierarchy of courts)
As to the kind of jurisdiction Over an appeal, the higher court The higher court uses its original
exercised by the higher court exercises its appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction in accordance with its power
and power of review. of control and supervision over the
proceedings of a lowercourt

As to questions that may be
raised
Only questions of law.
Questions of jurisdiction because the
court or tribunal acted w/o or in excess of
its jurisdic-tion, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
As to purpose To correct errors of judgment To correct errors of jurisdiction
(“error in the exercise of
jurisdiction”)

As to kind of orders to w/c Directed against judgments and May be directed against interlocu-tory
the action is directed final orders orders or matters where no appeal may be
taken from

As to parties Only the original parties to the The lower court or tribunal issuing the
action. assailed order are impleaded as public
respondents.

As to requirement of a prior MR is NOT required. Generally requires a motion for recon to

MR afford the tribunal an opportunity to
correct the alleged errors.

Period to File W/in 15 days from notice of the W/in 60 days from the notice of judgment,
judgment or final order appealed order or resolution. If MR/MNT was filed,
from period is counted from its denial.

As to remedy if petition is Motion for Reconsideration Appeal (if rendered by the RTC or CA), and
denied not another petition for certiorari
Appeal and Certiorari are mutually exclusive;

Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or
successive. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate
remedy. Under Rule 65, certiorari is proper only if there is no appeal or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

GR: Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the
ground invoked is grave abuse of discretion.

XPN: certiorari may be allowed despite the availability of appeal:

1. when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party;

2. where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment;
3. where there may be danger of a failure of justice;
4. where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient;
5. where the issue raised is one purely of law;
6. where public interest is involved; and
7. in case of urgency.
Certiorari not a substitute to lost appeal

Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where

the latter remedy is available but was lost though fault or negligence.

XPNs (when certiorari is available despite loss of appeal):

1. when appeal is lost w/o the appellant’s negligence

2. when public policy and advancement of public welfare so dictate
3. when broader interests of justice so require
4. when the writs issued are null
5. when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
judicial authority
RULE when Appeal is not an adequate remedy

If appeal is not an adequate remedy, or an equally beneficial, or speedy

remedy, the availability of appeal as a remedy cannot preclude a party
from making use of certiorari. It is mere inadequacy, not the absence of all
other legal remedies, and the danger of failure of justice without the writ,
that must determine the propriety of certiorari. A remedy is said to be
plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from
the injurious effects of the judgment, order, or resolution of the lower
court or agency. It is understood, then, that a litigant need not resort to the
less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order annulled and set
aside for being patently void. And even assuming that certiorari is not the
proper remedy against an assailed order, the petitioner should still not be
denied the recourse because it is better to look beyond procedural
requirements and to overcome the ordinary disinclination to exercise
supervisory powers in order that a void order of a lower court may be
made conformable to law and justice.(Mun. of Cordova, Pathfinder Devt
Corp, GR 205544, June 29, 2016)
Essential Requisites for a Petition for Certiorari

1. Petition is directed against a tribunal, board or officer

exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

2. Such tribunal, board or officer has acted w/o or in excess of

jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction;

3. There is neither appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of
annulling or modifying the proceeding.
TEST of Judicial/Quasi-Judicial/Ministerial Function

JUDICIAL FUNCTION
A respondent is exercising judicial function where he has the
power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of
the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these
questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.

QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION
 refers to acts of public administrative officers or bodies
required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts,
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for
their official actions, and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature.
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION

one which an officer performs in the context of a given set of facts, in

a prescribed manner and w/o regard to the exercise of his own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done

NB: Specifically, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or

quasi-judicial function must be clothed with power and authority to
pass judgment or render a decision on the controversy construing and
applying the laws to that end.
Certiorari not available if function is merely investigative and
recommendatory

 where the function is merely investigative and recommendatory –

i.e., the function of CHR investigators – with no power to pronounce
judgment on the controversy, the designation as “investigator” does
not involve the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power. Hence, the
act/s may not be challenged in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
When an executive order of a mayor is construed as one issued in the exercise of quasi-judicial
function

 Not every executive order issued by an executive official should be construed as in connection with
the exercise of an executive function. It should be the NATURE OF THE ACT, not the nature of the office,
which determines where an act is executive or quasi-judicial.

ILLUSTRATION:

In Aquino vs Municipality of Malay (GR 211356m Sept 29, 2014), a mayor issued an executive order
ordering the demolition of a resort owned by Boracay West Cove upon finding that the construction
thereof is illegal. When the owner filed a petition for certiorari was filed before the CA, said court
denied the petition upon determining that the respondent mayor was not exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial function when he issued the executive order. On appeal, the SC reversed the CA and declared
that the petition was in order. The SC held:

“The CA fell into a trap when it ruled that a mayor, an officer from the executive department, exercises
an executive function whenever he issues an Executive Order. It is the nature of the act to be
performed, rather than of the office,board, or body which performs it, that determines whether or not
a particular act is a discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The first requirement for certiorari
is satisfied if the officers act judicially in making their decision, whatever may be their public character.

In this case, the assailed EO 10 was issued upon the respondent mayor’s finding that Boracay West
Cove’s construction, expansion, and operation of its hotel in Malay, Aklan is illegal. Such a finding of
illegality required the respondent mayor’s exercise of quasi-judicial functions, against which the special
writ of certiorari may lie.”
EXPANDED SCOPE OF CERTIORARI
While as a rule, Rule 65 petitions would only lie against tribunals, boards or officers
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, recent pronouncements of SC have however
broadened the purpose of a petition for certiorari even as against acts which are neither
judicial nor quasi-judicial.

Invoking Sec 1, Art VIII of the Constitution which defined judicial power as including the
“duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Govt”,
the SC declared that petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriateremedies to
raise constitutional issues and to review and/or nullify the acts of legislative and
executive officials.

 “With respect to the SC, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily
broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to
correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also to set right, undo and
restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by
any branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. (Araullo vs. Aquino III, GR 209287, July 1,
2014)
EXAMPLES:

In Araullo vs Aquino, a petition for certiorari directly filed to the SC assailing the
constitutionality of DAP and other issuances of the DBM was held to be a proper remedy
even if the DBM is not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

In Villanueva vs JBC, a petition for certiorari directly filed to the SC to assail the
constitutionality of a rule issued by the JBC that MTC judges must have served at least 5
years as MTC judge to qualify as an RTC judge was held to be a proper remedy even if the
JBC is not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

In Private Hospitals Assoc vs Medialdia (Nov 6, 2018), where it was held that certiorari and
prohibition are proper to challenge the constitutionality of RA 10932 (Anti-Hospital Deposit
Law) even if it was issued in the exercise of legislative function, and not J,QJ, or M function.

In De Lima vs Reyes (Jan 11, 2016), the SC held that the determination by the DoJ of the
existence of probable cause is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. However, the actions of the
DoJ Secretary in affirming or reversing the findings of prosecutors may still be subject to
judicial review if it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Any question on whether the
DoJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be the
subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
MEANING OF “Acting w/o jurisdiction”, “In excess of
jurisdiction”, “Grave abuse of discretion”
WITHOUT JURISDICTION denotes that the tribunal, board or officer acted with
absolute lack of authority. Specifically, it refers to a case where the
court/tribunal does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or dispute.

EXCESS OF JURISDICTION refers to when the court/tribunal has subject-matter

jurisdiction but issues an order which it has no power or which is beyond its
power to do so.

 GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION connotes such capricious and whimsical

exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Otherwise stated, the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. This happens when the
court/tribunal abuses its discretion in a manner which is so patent and so gross
as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined by law, or a virtual refusal
either to perform the duty enjoined or act all in contemplation of law
NECESSITY OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
As a rule, the filing of an MR is a condition sine qua non to the filing of
a petition for certiorari.

Purpose: to allow the court an opportunity to correct its imputed

errors.

MR is recognized as a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of law.

 The availability of the remedy of MR generally precludes the

immediate filing of a petition for certiorari. Thus, the mere fact that a
petitioner failed to move for MR of the court a quo’s order denying his
motion is a sufficient cause for the outright dismissal of a petition for
certiorari.
XPNs to the MR Requirement
1. When the petition involves an issue of transcendental public
importance

2. The order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no

jurisdiction

3. The questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly

raised and passed upon by the lower court

4. There is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question

and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the
government or of the petitioner

5. Subject matter of the action is perishable

6. When under the circumstances, MR would be useless

7. Petitioner was deprived of due process and there is an extreme

urgency for relief

8. In a criminal case, relief from order of arrest is urgent and the

granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable

9. The proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
process

10. The proceedings were done ex parte or in which the petitioner

had no opportunity to object

11. Where the issue raised is one purely of law

12. Where public interest is involved

REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING THE PETITION:

1. It must be VERIFIED.

2. Petition must
allege the facts with certainty
pray that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of the tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

3. Attach the following:

Certified true copy of the judgment
Copies (xerox) of all pertinent pleadings and documents
Sworn certification of non-forum shopping
MATERIAL DATE RULE
the material dates must be stated in the petition:

1. Date when notice of the JFOR subject of the petition was

received;
2. Date when an MR or MNT was filed, if any
3. Date when notice of the denial of the MR or MNT was
received.

Purpose:to determine the timeliness of the petition, since the

perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law is jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal
renders the judgment final and executory.
WHEN TO FILE THE PETITION

 Within 60 days from notice of the JFOR. In case an MR/MNT

was timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the
60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of
such motion.
INSTANCES When the Court may extend the Period
1. Most persuasive and weighty reasons

2. To relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure

to comply with the prescribed procedure

3. good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a

reasonable time from the time of the default;

4. the existence of special or compelling circumstances;

5. the merits of the case;

6. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party

favored by the suspension of the rules;
7. a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory;

8. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;

9. fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without

appellant’s fault;

10. peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to

each case;

11. in the name of substantial justice and fair play;

12. importance of the issues involved; and

13. exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the

attendant circumstances.
NB:

There should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality

to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her
failure to comply with the rules. While it is always in the power of
the Court to suspend its own rules, the liberality with which equity
jurisdiction is exercised must always be anchored on the basic
consideration that the same must be warranted by the
circumstances obtaining in the case. Where there is no showing of
any exceptional circumstance that may rationalize a digression from
the rule on timeliness of petitions, the period mandated by the rule
must be observed.
COURT WHERE PETITION IS FILED

RTC  if petition relates to the acts or omissions of an MTC or corporation,

board, officer or person

CA  if petition involves acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial body

SB  whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction

COMELEC  election cases involving acts or

omissions of MTC or RTC, in aid of the
COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction

SC  *concurrent with RTC and CA

*acts and omissions of CA, SB, CTA En banc
•JFORs of COMELEC and COA (R64)

NB: While the SC has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and CA to issue writs of
CPMHQI, the same is subject to the principle of “hierarchy of courts”. Direct
invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed
only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically
set out in the petition.
Is public respondent required to answer or appear?

GR No. public respondent is not mandated to

appear in, or file an answer or comment to the petition

XPN if specifically directed by the court where the action is

pending
Filing of Petition does not stay Proceedings

The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal

case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public
respondent from further proceeding in the case. (Sec 7, Rule
65)

REASON: A petition for certiorari is an original action and not

a continuation of the proceedings in the lower court.
Consequently, the petition is actually not concerned with the
merits of the case below.

 REMEDY: apply for TRO or writ of preliminary injunction

What is “judicial courtesy”?

A practice of a lower court to suspend the proceedings of the

principal case pending before it whenever a petition for certiorari
is filed it even without a TRO or an injunctive writ from a higher
court.

GR: not applied in Rule 65 as Sec 7 mandates the public

respondent to proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days
from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or
tribunal, absent a TRO order or apreliminary injunction, or upon its
expiration and thatfailure of the public respondent to proceed with
theprincipal case may be a ground for an administrative charge.

XPN: may still apply if there is a strong probability that the

issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and
moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the
lower court (Sara Lee Phils vs Macatlang, GR 180148, Jan 14,
2015)
ORDER TO COMMENT

If the court finds that the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the
court shall issue an order requiring the respondent/s to comment on the
petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof.

Respondent needs to file a Comment and NOT a motion to dismiss

Court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other
pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper.

Options of the Court after filing of Comment

After the comment or other pleadings are filed (or the period to file has
lapsed), court has two options:

1. hear the case, or

2. require the parties to submit memoranda

 Court is not required to conduct a hearing.

Grounds for DISMISSAL of the Petition

a) petition is found to be patently w/o merit

b) petition is prosecuted manifestly for delay
c) questions raised in the petition are too unsubstantial
to require consideration

Consequence if judgment or order is disobeyed

If petition is granted, disobedience to the judgment or

order shall be punished by contempt.

REMEDY vs decision of court in Rule 65 petition

 APPEAL. Because certiorari is an original action.

Distinctions between Rule 64 vs Rule 65 certiorari
RULE 64 RULE 65
Directed against JFORs of COMELEC Directed against acts or omissions
and COA of any tribunal, board or officer
(*Thus, interlocutory orders of the exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
COMELEC & COA is subject to Rule functions
65)
Filed within 30 days from notice of Filed within 60 days from notice of
JFOR JFOR sought to be reviewed

If MR or MNT is filed,but such If MR or MNT is filed but

motion is subsequently denied, the
aggrieved party may file the
petition within the balance of the
period, but not less than 5 days
reckoned from the notice of denial.
subsequently denied, the petition
may be filed within a fresh period
of 60 days from notice of denial of
the motion.
PROHIBITION

an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation,

board, officer or person, whether exercising functions that are
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial, to desist from further
proceedings when such are conducted without or in excess of
its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, there being
no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.

 a process by which a superior court prevents inferior

courts, tribunals, officers or persons from usurping or
exercising a jurisdiction with which they have not been vested
by law.
Purpose and Function of Petition for Prohibition?

to secure an order or judgment to command the

respondent tribunal, board, corp. or officer to desist from
further proceedings in the action.

 to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of

authority and to provide for a fair and orderly administration
of justice

Prohibition is an original action

being an original and independent action and not merely a

continuation or a part of the trial which rendered the
judgment or order complained of, the decision of a lower
court on a petition for prohibition filed before it is
APPEALABLE.
Requisites for a Writ of Prohibition

1. The impugned act must be that of a tribunal, corporation,

board or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions;

2. The tribunal, corporation, board or person must have

acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction;

3. There is no appeal or any other plain speedy and

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING THE PETITION:

1. It must be VERIFIED.
2. Petition must

allege the facts with certainty

pray that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent
to desist from further proceedings in the action, and granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

3. Attach the following:

Certified true copy of the judgment
Copies (xerox) of all pertinent pleadings and documents
Sworn certification of non-forum shopping
 CERTIORARI
PROHIBITION
Filed against respondents
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions
Petition is directed against the
action of the court which is sought
to be annulled or modified
Purpose of certiorari is to annul or
modify the judgment, order,
resolution or proceedings of the
public respondent
A corrective remedy as it operates
on acts already consummated
vs
Filed against respondents
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions
Petition is directed against the
court or tribunal itself commanding
it to desist from further proceeding
with the case
Purpose of prohibition is to
command the respondent court or
tribunal to desist from further
proceedings
A preventive remedy whose
function is to restrain the doing of
some act about to be done
PROHIBITION vs INJUNCTION

Injunction is generally directed a person NOT exercising

judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, while
Prohibition is directed against a tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial
or ministerial functions.

 Injunction may be the main action itself or just a

provisional remedy in the main action. On the other
hand, Prohibition is always a main action.
Preliminary Injunction is available as a provisional
remedy when one files a petition for prohibition.
MANDAMUS

an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation,

board, officer or person to do an act required to be done as when
one:
a) Unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
enjoins as a duty, and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
b) Unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
right or office to which such other is entitled and there is no
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.
not available against discretionary acts.
 for mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a
ministerial act or duty.
PRAYER IN A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS

a) That judgment be rendered “commanding” the

respondent to do the act required to be done to protect
the rights of the petitioner, and

b) That respondent pay the “damages” sustained by the

petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
REQUISITES for MANDAMUS

1. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded (note: mandamus
does not establish a legal right but merely enforces one that is
already clearly established.)

2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act because the
same is mandated by law

3. The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty

enjoined by law

4. The act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary(note: a duty

is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither
the exercise of official discretion or judgment)

5. There is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of law.
Is mandamus available to compel a court to
take action?
YES, a court may be compelled by mandamus to decide a
case pending before it because if has the duty to resolve a
case. However, mandamus will not lie to order the court to
decide in a particular manner for or against a litigant.

 In matters involving the exercise of judgment and

discretion, mandamus may be resorted to to compel the
respondent to take action BUT it cannot be used to direct the
manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised.
Are contractual obligations compellable by mandamus?

 NO. Mandamus cannot be availed of as a remedy to enforce the

performance of contractual obligations. Mandamus is not intended
to aid a plaintiff in the enforcement of a mere contract right, or to
take the place of the other remedies provided by law for the
adjudication of disputed claims.
EXAMPLES where mandamus is available
a) To compel the MMDA (and other concerned govt agencies) to clean up, rehabilitate
and protect Manila Bay, and maintain adequate solid waste and liquid waste disposal
systems as mandated by environmental laws.

b) To compel a corporation to record the transfer of shares in its stock-and-transfer book

and consequently to issue new stock certificates in the name of the transferee;

c) To compel a judge to allow an appeal, where the same was timely and duly filed and
the proper fees have been paid;

d) To compel a prosecutor to include in the Information certain persons whose

participation in the commission of a crime clearly appears;

e) To compel the execution of a judgmentw/c has attained finality (here, execution is a

matter of right)
f) To compel the court to accept an amendment of a pleading as a matter of right

g) To compel a city or municipality to enact and approve an appropriation ordinance, and

the corresponding disbursement of funds therefore to effect payment of a final money
judgment rendered against it.
EXAMPLES where mandamus is not available
a) To compel a prosecutor to file an Information

b) To compel an act prohibited by law

c) To compel a school to confer upon a graduate his degree with honors

d) To compel a school to allow the graduation of a student who failed to comply

with his academic requirements, or to admit a student.

e) To compel the PMA to restore a cadet’s rights and entitlements as a full-fledged

graduating cadet

f) To compel PRC to review and re-assess answers to examination questions

g) To compel payment of informer’s reward (under the NIRC). Such grant of

informer’s reward for the discovery, conviction and punishment of tax offenses is
a discretionary quasi-judicial matter.
MANDAMUS vs QUO WARRANTO

Where the respondent merely excludes petitioner from an office

without usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding the office,
the proper remedy is mandamus.

If the respondent however claims any right to the office and
usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds it against the petitioner,
the remedy is quo warranto.

MANDAMUS vs PROHIBITION

 Mandamus is an affirmative remedy as it commands that

something be done while Prohibition is a negativeremedy as it
commands that something be left undone.
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or

instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or
series of acts declared by final judgment which shall remain effective until
judgment is fully satisfied (Sec 4(c), Rule 1, Rules of Procedure for Envi Cases)

When is the writ available?

when any agency or instrumentality of the government, or officer thereof:

a) UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTS the performance of an act which the law

specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in
connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law,
rule, regulation, or a right therein; or

b) UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDES another from the use or enjoyment of such

right.

(NB: in both instances, there must be a showing that there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.)
FORM and CONTENTS of the Petition

1. Must be VERIFIED

2. It shall allege facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting

evidence

3. Must specify that the petition concerns an environmental law,

rule, or regulation

4. Must pray that judgment be rendered commanding the

respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is
fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner
by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of
the respondent

5. Petition must contain a sworn Certification of Non-Forum

Shopping
Where to file the petition?

a) RTC, exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable

neglect or mission occurred; or
b) CA, or
c) SC

Are docket fees required?

NO. Petitioner shall be exempt from paying docket fees.

Action of the court when the petition is filed?

Court may issue:

1. Orders to expedite the proceedings, or

2. Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) for the preservation

of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings (note: TEPO is
granted if it appears that the matter is of extreme urgency and the
applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury)
ORDER TO COMMENT
 If the court finds that the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall
issue an order requiring the respondent/s to comment on the petition within ten (10)
days from receipt of a copy thereof.
 Respondent needs to file a Comment and NOT a motion to dismiss.
Court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings
as it may deem necessary and proper.

Options of the Court after filing of Comment

 After the comment or other pleadings are filed (or the period to file has lapsed),
court has two options:
•hear the case (summary in nature), or
•require the parties to submit memoranda
Petition shall be resolved w/o delay within 60 days from the date it was submitted for
resolution.

JUDGMENT
 if warranted, the court shall:
•Grant the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to
perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied
Require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution
of the judgment. (note: The court or through a commissioner or appropriate govt
agency may evaluate and monitor compliance
WRIT OF KALIKASAN

a remedy available to a
• natural or juridical person,
• entity authorized by law,
• people’s organization,
• non-govt organization,
• any public interest group accredited by or registered with
any governmental agency

on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a healthful

and balanced ecology is violated or threatened with violation by
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in 2 or more cities or provinces.
FORM and CONTENTS of the Petition
1. Must be VERIFIED
2. State the names and personal circumstances of the petitioner
and respondent
3. Must contain/allege:
•Envi law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated
•Act or omission complained of
•Environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in 2 or more cities or provinces.
•all relevant and material evidence, including affidavits of
witnesses
•the reliefs prayed for
4. Must contain sworn Cert of Non-Forum Shopping

WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION

 SC or any of the stations of the CA
Are docket fees required?
NO. Petitioner shall be exempt from paying docket fees.

When and how is the writ issued?

 if petition is sufficient in substance and form, the court shall issue
an order within 3 days from filing of the petition:
•Issuing the writ; and
•Requiring the respondent to file a VERIFIED RETURN (a.k.a answer)

Penalty for refusal to issue or serve the writ

contempt w/o prejudice to other civil, criminal or admin actions

When to file Return?

 respondent to file a verified return w/n 10 days (NON-EXTENDIBLE)
after service of the writ. All defenses not raised in the return are
deemed waived.
EFFECT of Failure to File Return
 Case to proceed to hear the case ex parte
Filing of motion to declare in default is prohibited.

Period to issue Judgment

Within60 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. The
judgment shall either GRANT or DENY the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.

RELIEFS which the court may grant under the Writ

1. Directing respondent to cease and desist from committing acts or
neglecting performance of duties in violation of environmental laws
2. Directing the respondent to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
environment
3. Directing respondent to monitor strict compliance with the decision and
orders of the court
4. Directing respondent to make periodic reports on the execution of the
final judgment
5. Such other reliefs w/c relate to the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology
NB: NO AWARD OF DAMAGES to individual petitioners.
APPEAL
if judgment is rendered by the CA, appeal is to the SC (via Rule 45) within 15
days from notice of judgment. (NOTE: unlike in ordinary Appeal by Certiorari
where only questions of law may be raised, here, the appeal may raise even
questions of fact)

PROHIBITED Motions and Pleadings

(M-BEDDD RTCC)
•Motion for/to
 Bill of Particulars
 Extension of time to file return
 Declare in default
 Dismiss
 Dilatory motion for postponement
•Reply
•Third-Party Complaint
•Cross-Claim
•Counterclaim
FILING of Petition for Writ of kalikasan not a bar to filing other
actions
filing of the petition shall not preclude the filing of separate civil,
criminal or admin actions

What is a SLAPP Suit?

 Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
 An action – whether civil, criminal, or administrative – brought
against any person, institution or any govt agency or LGU or its
officials and employees, with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue
pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such person, institution or
govt agency has taken or may take in the enforcement of the
environment or assertion of environmental rights
 May be interposed as a defense. If so interposed in the
Answer, plaintiff may file an opposition w/in 5 days (non-
extendible) to show that it is not a SLAPP suit. The defense of
SLAPP shall be set for summary hearing.
What is the Precautionary Principle?

An evidentiary rule in Environmental Cases which states that when

human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible
damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but
uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish such threats.

When is Precautionary Principle Applied?

When there’s lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal

link between human activity and environmental effect
Standards for Application
Following factors are considered:
1. threats to human life or health
2. Inequity to present or future generations
3. Prejudice to the environment w/o legal consideration of the
environmental rights of those affected
QUO WARRANTO

an action for the usurpation of a public (1) office, (2) position,
or (3) franchise, commenced by a verified petition in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines (Section 1, Rule 66)

in general, it is an action against a person who usurps,

intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office,
position or franchise.

The term "quo warranto" is Latin for "by what

authority." Therefore, quo warranto is a writ of inquiry. It
determines whether an individual has the legal right to hold the
public office he or she occupies.
ESSENCE of Quo Warranto

The essence of quo warranto is to protect the body politic

from the usurpation of public office and to ensure that
government authority is entrusted only to qualified
individuals.

Who may file a Quo Warranto Petition?

GR: SolGen or Public Prosec, in the name of Republic

XPN: Private Individual (only when such individual has a
claim over the position in question)
“The remedy of quo warranto is vested in the people, and not in
any private individual or group, because disputes over title to
public office are viewed as a public question of governmental
legitimacy and not merely a private quarrel among rival
claimants.That usurpation of a public office is treated as a public
wrong and carries with it public interest is clear when Section 1,
Rule 66 provides that where the action is for the usurpation of a
public office, position or franchise, it shall be commenced by a
verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines through the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor.

The only time that an individual, in his own name, may bring an
action for quo warranto is when such individual has a claim over
the position in question. Section 5 of Rule 66 provides: “A person
claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or
unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action
therefor in his own name.”
Against whom may the petition be brought?
1. A person – one who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully
holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise.
2. A public officer – who does or suffers an act which, by
provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture
of his office.
3. An association– one w/c acts as a corporation w/in the
Philippines w/o being legally incorporated or w/o lawful
authority to do so, i.e., “de facto corporation”.

When is filing a quo warranto petition by the SolGen or

public prosecutor COMPULSORY?
4. upon the President's directive;
5. upon complaint; or
6. when the SolGen/public prosecutor has good reason to
believe that a quo warranto case can be established by
proof
Is leave of court (i.e., “permission of the court”) required in
filing quo warranto petitions?

As a rule, NO. Prior leave of court is not required. BUT if the
SolGen or public prosecutor will commence the petition at the
request and upon the relation of another person, then
permission of the court is required.

Requirement for Indemnity

if the SolGen / public prosecutor will commence the petition

at the request and upon the relation of another person, he
may first require an indemnity for the expenses and costs of
the action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the
court by the person at whose request and upon whose relation
the same is brought.
Period to File

If petitioner is a mere private individual pursuing a private

interest, the petition shall be commenced within one (1) year
after the cause for the public official’s ouster, or the right of the
petitioner to hold such office or position, arose.

 if petition is commenced by the SolGen or a public

prosecutor, the action is not subject to prescription.
SC held in Republic vs Sereno: “The one-year limitation under
Sec 11 of Rule 66 applies only when the petitioner is a mere
private individual pursuing a private interest. It does not apply
when the government itself seeks relief for a public wrong and
suing for public interest.When the government is the real party
in interest, and is proceeding mainly to assert its rights, there
can be no defense on the ground of laches or prescription.
Indubitably, the basic principle that "prescription does not lie
against the State" applies.
Jurisdiction and Venue

Quo Warranto petition under Rule 66 can only be filed before

the SC, CA, or the RTC.

If filed in the RTC, venue shall be that RTC w/c has jurisdiction
over the territorial area where the respondent or any of the
respondents resides.

 If the petition will be commenced by the SolGen, it may only

be brought in the RTC of the City of Manila, the CA, and the SC
(Sec 7, Rule 66)
Quo Warranto in the Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over

petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions if similar nature, including quo warranto, arising in
cases filed under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, s. 1986.

Quo Warranto under the Omnibus Election Code:

WHO may file?  any voter

Purpose?  to contest the election of the officer
Grounds?  1. Ineligibility, or
2. Disloyalty to the Republic
Period to file?  W/in 10 days after proclamation
of the results of the election
WHERE TO FILE?

MTC  for barangay officials

RTC  for municipal officials

COMELEC  for city, prov’l, reg’l officials

HRET  for members of House of Reps

SET  for members of Senate

 Quo Warranto in ELECTIVE vs APPOINTIVE Officials
ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
As to governing law Election law (i.e., Omnibus Rule 66 of the Rules of Court
Election Code)
Issue to be Eligibility or ineligibility of Legality or illegality of the
determined the person elected or his appointment
loyalty or disloyalty to the
Republic

Period to file w/in 10 days after the w/in 1 year from the time the
proclamation of the results cause of ouster, or the right of
of the election the petitioner to hold office or
position arose.

jurisdiction COMELEC, RTC, or MTC SC, CA, or RTC

Who may file the Any voter, even if he is not The person claiming to be
petition entitled to the office entitled to the office
Extent of Judgment in QW vs Elective Officials

When the person elected is found ineligible, the court can

declare in the judgment the winner in the election.

 In Maquiling vs COMELEC, the SC ruled that: “when the law

requires certain qualifications to be possessed or that certain
disqualifications be not possessed by persons desiring to serve as
elective public officials, those qualifications must be met before
one even becomes a candidate. When a person who is not
qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number
of votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the
ballot cannot cure the defect in the qualifications of the
candidate. Even if the ineligible candidate receives the highest
number of votes, such votes cast are not considered at all in
determining the winner of an election. The winner in the election
is the candidate who garnered the highest number of votes
among the qualified candidates.”
Quo warranto vs Election Protest

In a quo warranto petition in an election of public officials,

the cause of action is the eligibility of the candidate or lack of it,
or his being disloyal to the Republic. The petition may be
initiated by any voter, and the purpose of the petition is unseat
the ineligible person from the office.

 In an election protest, the cause of action is the irregularity

in the conduct of the election. Election contest is strictly a
contest between the defeated and the winning candidates
based on grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities. It can
only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a cert of
candidacy and has been voted for in the preceding elections.
Quo Warranto vs Mandamus

 A QW proceeding is brought against the holder

of the office, who is the person claiming the office
as against the petitioner. In Mandamus, the suit is
brought against the person who is responsible for
unlawfully excluding the petitioner from office, like
an appointing authority.
Quo Warranto vs Impeachment
While both impeachment and quo warranto may result in the ouster of
the public official, the two proceedings materially differ.

Impeachment is a political proceeding exercised by the legislative, as

representatives of the sovereign, to vindicate the breach of the trust
reposed by the people in the hands of the public officer by determining
the public officer's fitness to stay in the office.Quo Warranto, on the
other hand, is a judicial proceeding which involves a determination of
the eligibility or validity of the election or appointment of a public
official based on predetermined rules.

While respondent's title to hold a public office is the issue in quo

warranto proceedings, impeachment necessarily presupposes that
respondent legally holds the public office and thus, is an impeachable
officer, the only issue being whether or not he/she committed
impeachable offenses to warrant his/her removal from office.
 Impeachment
As to nature of the impeachment proceedings are political
action in nature. It is a proceeding exercised
by the legislative, as representatives of
the sovereign, to vindicate the breach
of the trust reposed by the people in
the hands of the public officer by
determining the public officer's fitness
to stay in the office.
Quo Warranto
an action for quo warranto is judicial or a
proceeding traditionally lodged in the
courts. It involves a judicial determination of
the eligibility or validity of the election or
appointment of a public official based on
predetermined rules.

As to cause of action Here, the cause of action is the the cause of action lies on the usurping,
commission of an impeachable offense intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising
of a public office
As to reliefs sought In impeachment, a conviction for the Respondent in a quo warranto proceeding
charges of impeachable offenses shall shall be adjudged to cease from holding a
result to the removal of the respondent public office, which he/she is ineligible to
from the public office that he/she is hold.
legally holding. It is not legally possible
to impeach or remove a person from an
office that he/she, in the first place,
does not and cannot legally hold or
occupy.

As to nature of a judgment in an impeachment judgment in a quo warranto case determines

judgment proceeding pertain to a respondent's the respondent's constitutional or legal
"fitness for public office." authority to perform any act in, or exercise
any function of the office to which he lays
claim
Rights of persons adjudged entitled to the
public office
such person, after taking his oath of office and executing the
required bond, may:

1. take upon himself the execution of the office

2. immediate thereafter demand of the respondent all the books
and papers in the respondent’s custody or control appertaining
to the office to which the judgment relates
3. file an action against the respondent to recover damages
sustained by him by reason of the usurpation(Period to file:w/in
1 year from the entry of judgment establishing his right to the
office in question).
Quo Warranto against a Corporation
Under Sec 1 (c), Rule 66, a quo warranto petition may be filed against an
association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being
legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

Strictly, the petition may only be brought against a de facto corporation(i.e.,

one which, in good faith, claims to be a corporation being organized pursuant
to a valid law, and assumes corporate powers because it was issued a
certificate of incorporation)

The filing of articles of incorporation and the issuance of the certificate of

incorporation are essential for the existence of a de facto corporation. It is the
act of registration with SEC through the issuance of a certificate of
incorporation that marks the beginning of an entity's corporate existence.
(Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima vs Alzona)

The existence of a de facto corporation, and its right to exercise corporate

powers, cannot be attacked collaterally. It may only be attacked directly
through a quo warranto proceeding commenced by the SolGen. (Sec 19,
Revised Corporation Code)
REPUBLIC vs MARIA LOURDES SERENO
GR 237428, May 11, 2018

FACTS: The Republic, through the OSG, filed a Petition for Quo
Warranto challenging CJ Sereno's right and title to the position
of Chief Justice. The Republic avers that respondent unlawfully
holds her office because in failing to regularly declare her SALN
as a member of the career service (i.e., UP Law prof) prior to her
appointment as an Assoc. Justice, and later as CJ,she cannot be
said to possess the requirement of proven integrity demanded
of every aspiring member of the Judiciary. The Republic prays
that her appointment as CJ be declared void. As defense,
Respondent claims that, as an impeachable officer, she may only
be removed through impeachment by the Senate sitting as an
impeachment court.
ISSUE 1: WoN the SC can assume jurisdiction to a petition for quo
warranto against an SC Justice who is an impeachable officer and against whom an
impeach-ment complaint has already been filed with the HoR.

HELD 1: YES. The language of Sec 2, Art XI of the Constitution does not
foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers. The provision reads:
“Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court,
the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust.”

The provision uses the permissive term "may" which, in statutory construction,
denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect. The
term "may" is indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. An
option to remove by impeachment admits of an alternative mode of effecting the
removal.

To subscribe to the view that appointments or election of impeachable officers are

outside judicial review is to cleanse their appointments or election of any possible
defect pertaining to the Constitutionally-prescribed qualifications which cannot
otherwise be raised in an impeachment proceeding.
The courts should be able to inquire into the validity of appointments even of
impeachable officers. To hold otherwise is to allow an absurd situation where
the appointment of an impeachable officer cannot be questioned even when,
for instance, he or she has been determined to be of foreign nationality or, in
offices where Bar membership is a qualification, when he or she fraudulently
represented to be a member of the Bar. Unless such an officer commits any of
the grounds for impeachment and is actually impeached, he can continue
discharging the functions of his office even when he is clearly disqualified from
holding it. This could not have been the intent of the framers of the
Constitution.

To construe Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution as proscribing a

quo warranto petition is to deprive the State of a remedy to correct a "public
wrong" arising from defective or void appointments.

The essence of quo warranto is to protect the body politic from the usurpation
of public office and to ensure that government authority is entrusted only to
qualified individuals. Reason therefore dictates that quo warranto should be an
available remedy to question the legality of appointments especially of
impeachable officers considering that they occupy the highest-ranking offices in
the land and are capable of wielding vast power and influence on matters of law
and policy.
ISSUE 2: WoN the simultaneous filing and pendency of impeachment and quo
warranto proceedings constitute forum shopping.

HELD 2: NO. Forum shopping is the act of repetitively availing of several

judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances,
and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already resolved
adversely by some other court, to increase a litigant’s chances of obtaining a favorable
decision if not in one court, then in another.

There are three ways to commit forum shopping, to wit:

1. filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer,
the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal
is litis pendentia);
2. filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res
judicata); and
3. filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis
pendentia or res judicata).
The test for determining existence of forum shopping is as follows:“whether
the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in
one case will amount to res judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test
is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties,
rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.”

Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: ( 1)

identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same
interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for,
the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to
the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that
may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful,
would amount to res judicata in the other case.

Res judicata bars a subsequent case when the following requisites are
satisfied: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an
order on the merits; (4) there is - between the first and the second actions -
identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.
Guided by the foregoing, there can be no forum shopping in this case despite the
pendency of the impeachment proceedings before the HoR.

The causes of action in the two proceedings are unequivocally different. In quo warranto,
the cause of action lies on the usurping, intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising of a
public office, while in impeachment, it is the commission of an impeachable offense.
Simply put, while respondent's title to hold a public office is the issue in quo
warranto proceedings, impeachment necessarily presupposes that respondent legally
holds the public office and thus, is an impeachable officer, the only issue being whether or
not she committed impeachable offenses to warrant her removal from office.

Likewise, the reliefs sought in the two proceedings are different. Respondent in a quo
warranto proceeding shall be adjudged to cease from holding a public office, which
he/she is ineligible to hold. On the other hand, in impeachment, a conviction for the
charges of impeachable offenses shall result to the removal of the respondent from the
public office that he/she is legally holding. It is not legally possible to impeach or remove a
person from an office that he/she, in the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or
occupy.

A judgment in a quo warranto case determines the respondent's constitutional or legal

authority to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays
claim; meanwhile a judgment in an impeachment proceeding pertain to a respondent's
"fitness for public office."
ISSUE 3: WoN the petition is outrightly dismissible on the
ground of prescription

HELD 3: NO. The one-year limitation under Sec 11 of Rule 66

applies only when the petitioner is a mere private individual pursuing
a private interest. It does not apply when the government itself seeks
relief for a public wrong and suing for public interest.

When the government is the real party in interest, and is proceeding

mainly to assert its rights, there can be no defense on the ground of
laches or prescription.

That prescription does not lie in this case can also be deduced from
the very purpose of an action for quo warranto. The remedy of quo
warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority
unlawfully asserted. Because quo warranto serves to end a
continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action.
EXPROPRIATION (RULE 67)
Power of Eminent Domain

the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private

property to particular uses to promote public welfare.

One of the 3 inherent powers of the state, it is an indispensable

attribute of sovereignty; a power grounded in the primary duty of
government to serve the common need and advance the general
welfare.

is inseparable in sovereignty being essential to the existence of

the State and inherent in government.
Limitation to Govt’s Exercise of Eminent Domain
(Sec 9, Art III, 1987 Constitution)

that it is for a particular public use/purpose; and

that just compensation be paid to the property owner.

Essence of Expropriation

•it is a “forced private property taking”

•in expropriation, the private owner is deprived of his property

against his will. Correspondingly, the mandatory requirement of
due process ought to be strictly followed, such that the state
must show, at the minimum, a genuine need, an exacting public
purpose to take private property the purpose to be specifically
alleged or at least reasonably deducible from the complaint.
Meaning of Public Use/Purpose

•as an eminent domain concept, includes any use that

is of usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is
productive of general benefit to the public.
Continuing Requirement of Public Purpose
•with respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should
commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the
petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it should file another
petition for the new purpose. If not, it is then incumbent upon the
expropriator to return the said property to its private owner, if the
latter desires to reacquire the same. Otherwise, the judgment of
expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw, as it would lack one
indispensable element for the proper exercise of the power of
eminent domain, namely, the particular public purpose for which
the property will be devoted.

•The taking of a private land in expropriation proceedings is always

conditioned on its continued devotion to its public purpose.
Corollarily, once the purpose is terminated or abandoned, then the
former owner, if he so desires, may seek its reversion, subject of
course to the return, at the very least, of the just compensation
received.
RULE when it is determined that expropriation is NOT for public
purpose

GR: Expropriation proceedings must be dismissed

XPN: 1. When the trial court’s order already became

final and executory;
2. the government already took possession of
the property; and
3. the expropriation case already caused
prejudice to the landowner.

NB: The expropriation case is not automatically dismissed when the

property ceases to be for public use. The state must first file the
appropriate Motion to Withdraw before the trial court having
jurisdiction over the proceedings. The grant or denial of any Motion
to Withdraw in an expropriation proceeding is always subject to
judicial discretion.
Meaning of Just Compensation

•the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of
the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation

•the final determination of the fair market value of the property,

i.e., “the fair value of the property between one who desires to
purchase and one who desires to sell”
Meaning of “TAKING”

•there is a "taking" when the owner is actually deprived or

dispossessed of his property;

•where the owner is deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use

of his property or of its value by its being diverted to public use

•when there is a practical destruction or a material impairment

of the value of his property

•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 beneficial
enjoyment thereof.
REQUISITES OF “TAKING”:

1. the expropriator must enter a private property;

2. the entrance into private property must be for more than

a momentary period;

3. the entry into the property should be under warrant or

color of legal authority;

4. the property must be devoted to a public use or

otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected;

5. the utilization of the property for public use must be in

such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all
beneficial enjoyment of the property.
REQUISITES for LGUs to exercise eminent domain (Section 19, RA
7160)

1. Ordinance (NOT a resolution) is enacted by the local legislative

council

2. Eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare,

or for the benefit of the poor and the landless

3. Power is exercised through the chief executive (i.e., mayor or

governor) acting pursuant to the enacted ordinance

4. There is payment of just compensation

5. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the

owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer
was not accepted.
How LGUs may immediately take possession of the property expropriated
(Section 19, RA 7160)

1. File expropriation proceedings

2. Deposit with the proper court at least 15% of the fair market value
(FMV) of the property based on the current tax declaration of the
property to be expropriated (Note: Just compensation here is the FMV of
the property at the time of taking.)

Stages in expropriation process

1st stage  determination of the propriety of expropriation – i.e., its
necessity and the public purpose.
(Note: 1st stage will end in the issuance of an Order of Expropriation
if court finds for the plaintiff, or Order of Dismissal if it finds
otherwise.)

2nd stage  determination of just compensation.

Only upon the completion of these two stages that expropriation is
said to be completed. The process is not complete until payment of
just compensation.
Matters to be alleged in the VERIFIED Complaint:

1. State with certainty the right of the plaintiff to expropriation

and the purpose thereof

2. Describe the real or personal property sought to be

expropriated

3. Join as defendants all persons owning, claiming to own, or

occupying, any part of the property or any interest therein (Sec
1, Rule 67)

(REMEDY if a person claiming interest in the property is not

joined as a defendant?  he has the right to intervene and lay
claim on the compensation.)
Where to file the complaint for expropriation?

RTC, as it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation

regardless of the value of the subject property. The subject of an
expropriation suit is the government’s exercise of eminent domain,
a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

 Although the value of the property to be expropriated is

estimated in monetary terms, such is merely incidental to the
expropriation suit because the amount of compensation is only
determined after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the
expropriation.
When to file the Answer?

Within the period stated in the summons (S3, R67).

Waiver of defenses in the Answer

A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged in
his Answer.

REMEDY when defenses are omitted in the Answer

 File a Motion to Amend Answer w/in 10 days from ten (10) days
from the filing of the Answer.

EFFECT of Failure to File an Answer

 at the trial of the issue of just compensation,whether or not a
defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may present
evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his
property, and he may share in the distribution of the award.
Is filing an Answer always required?

NO. An Answer is not required if defendant has no objection

or defense to the action or the taking of his property. Instead, he
may file and serve a:

•Notice of Appearance, and

•Manifestation to the fact that he has no objection or defense to

the taking of his property. He shall specifically designate or
identify the property in which he claims to have an interest.
REQUIREMENTS for immediate entry/possession of the
property (Sec 2, Rule 67)

•File the complaint for expropriation

•Send due notice to the defendant
•Deposit with the authorized government depositary an
amount equivalent to assessed value of the property for
purposes of taxation. If personal property is involved (hence,
no assessed value), the amount to be deposited shall be fixed
by court after the value of the property is provisionally
ascertained.

After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff to
forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property
involved and promptly submit a report thereof to the court.

Note: NO PRIOR HEARING is required before immediate

possession can be granted to the plaintiff.
Purpose of the Deposit?

 serves as an advanced payment to the owner should the court

decide in favor of plaintiff. Should the court decide otherwise, it
serves as an indemnity against any damage which the owner may
have sustained.
Expropriation for “National Government Infrastructure Projects”
(RA 8974)

Section 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings.- Whenever it is

necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way, site, or
location for any national gov’t infrastructure project through
expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate
the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the
following guidelines:

(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the
defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the
owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of 100%of
the value of the property based on the current BIR zonal valuation;
and (b) the value of the improvements and/or structures(thereon);
Expropriation under RULE 67 vs RA 8974 vs LGC
RA 8974 "provides for a procedure eminently more favorable
to the property owner than Rule 67" since it requires the
immediate payment of the (1) zonal value and the (2) value of
the improvements on the land to the property owner before
the trial court can allow the government to take possession. In
contrast, Rule 67 only requires the government to deposit the
assessed value of the property for it to enter and take
possession.
RA 8974 Rule 67 LGC
Basis of payment 100% of BIR zonal Assessed Value 15% of fair market
value value

Mode of Immediate Deposit the amount to Deposit to the

payment payment to the an authorized govt proper court
property owner depositary
 RA 8974 applies in instances when the nat’l gov’t
expropriates property for “national govt infrastructure
projects”. Thus, if expropriation is engaged in by the natl govt
for purposes other than natl infrastructure projects, the
assessed value standard and the deposit mode prescribed in
Rule 67 continues to apply.
What is an Order of Expropriation? When is it issued?

a.k.a. Order of Condemnation, it is an order declaring that

the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property for the
public purpose or use described in the complaint, upon
payment of just compensation.

 issued when:
•Objections of the defendant are overruled, or
•No party appears to object to or defend against the
expropriation.

 this Order of Expropriation is appealable. Multiple appeal

is allowed in Expropriation proceedings. Hence, the aggrieved
party must file a Notice of Appeal with Record on Appeal.
No dismissal by plaintiff upon issuance of Order or
Expropriation

After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not

be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding
except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable.
(Sec 4, Rule 67)

Effect of Appeal against Order of Expropriation

1. Determination of just compensation shall not be
suspended or held in abeyance

2. Right of plaintiff to enter upon the property of the

defendant and appropriate the same for public use shall
not be delayed by such appeal.
RULE if RTC’s decision is reversed on appeal
appellate court shall issue judgment ordering the RTC to (1) enforce restoration
of possession of the property to the defendant and to (2) determine damages
w/c defendant sustained by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff.

How to determine JUST COMPENSATION

Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not
more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to
ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property (Sec 5).
 Appointment of commissioners is mandatory.
Parties may introduce their evidence in the hearing before the
commissioners.
 commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not
taken and deduct from such the consequential benefits to be derived by the
owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, but 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)
 the measure to be borne in mind is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss
since what is involved is the takeover of private property under the State’s
coercive power
Reckoning point of “just compensation”

 Just compensation is determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the
filing of the complaint, whichever came first (Sec 4, Rule 67).
•Where an expropriation action is initiated first before the taking of the property, the just
compensation is fixed as of the time of the filing of the complaint.
•where the expropriating agency takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit,
just compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking.

XPN: Wherethe physical taking was done without the knowledge or consent of the
owner, just compensation should be reckoned from the time the property owners initiated
inverse condemnation proceedings. As held in National Power Corp vs Macabangkit
Sangkay:

“Compensation that is reckoned on the market value prevailing at the time

either when NPC entered or when it completed the tunnel, as NPC submits, would not be
just, for it would compound the gross unfairness already caused to the owners by NPC's
entering without the intention of formally expropriating the land, and without the prior
knowledge and consent of the Heirs of Macabangkit. NPC's entry denied elementary due
process of law to the owners since then until the owners commenced the inverse
condemnation proceedings. The Court is more concerned with the necessity to prevent
NPC from unjustly profiting from its deliberate acts of denying due process of law to the
owners. As a measure of simple justice and ordinary fairness to them, therefore, reckoning
just compensation on the value at the time the owners commenced these inverse
condemnation proceedings is entirely warranted.”
Rule if defendant refuses to receive payment

if defendantdeclines 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)

Payment in case of uncertain ownership or conflicting claims

 If the ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or there are conflicting claims
to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums awarded as compensation
for the property to be paid to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the
same proceeding to be entitled thereto. (Sec 9)

Effect of Non-Payment of Just Compensation

Non-payment of just compensation does not automatically entitle the private

landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots.
 However, in cases where the govt failed to pay just compensation w/in five (5)
years from the finality of judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. This is in
consonance with the principle that the govt cannot keep the property and dishonor
the judgment.
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

An action for collection and foreclosure of mortgage are

mutually exclusive remedies.

The RTC erred in granting petitioner’s remedies or demands of

collection and foreclosure of mortgage successively. These
remedies of collection and foreclosure are mutually exclusive.
The invocation or grant of one remedy precludes the other. In
the absence of express statutory provisions, a mortgage creditor
may institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal
action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In
other words, he may pursue either of the two remedies, but not
both. Pineda vs. Zuñiga Vda. de Vega, G.R. No. 233774, April 10,
2019
PARTITION

Approval of partition agreements are final orders which could be the subject of
appeals.

There are two phases of an action for partition: first, the trial court, after
determining that a co-ownership in fact exists and that partition is proper, issues
an order for partition; and, second, the trial court promulgates a decision
confirming the sketch and subdivision of the properties submitted by the parties
(if the parties reach an agreement) or by the appointed commissioners (if the
parties fail to agree), as the case may be. Since Carlos, Jr.'s estate is sizeable,
consisting in numerous properties, each property may be the subject of separate
agreements for its partition. The parties may also agree to a project of partition
which covers the entire estate of the decedent. These various partition
agreements must all be approved by court order which is considered final orders
decreeing partition appealable by an aggrieved party under the second
paragraph of Section 2, Rule 69. The February 9 and August 27, 2010 Orders are
not interlocutory as there is nothing more to be done as regards the partition of
the subject property. Clearly, respondent filed an incorrect remedy to assail
several final orders of the RTC. Silva vs. Lo, G.R. No. 206667, June 23, 2021, J.
Hernando
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

The three usual actions to recover possession of real property are:

1. Accion interdictal or a summary ejectment proceeding, which may be
either for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), for
the recovery of physical or material possession (possession de facto) where
the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and should be
brought in the proper inferior court;

2. Accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the better right of

possession (possession de jure), which should be brought in the proper
inferior court or Regional Trial Court (depending upon the value of the
property) when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year (or for
less than a year in cases other than those mentioned in Rule 70 of the Rules
of Court); and

3. 3. Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion or reivindicatory

action, which is an action for recovery of ownership which must be brought
in the proper inferior court or Regional Trial Court (depending upon the
value of the property). Heirs of Alfredo Cullado vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No.
212938, July 30, 2019
Public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases.
Notably, even public lands can be the subject of forcible
entry cases as it has already been held that ejectment
proceedings may involve all kinds of land. Thus, in the case
at bench, while the parties are fighting over the possession
of a government land, the courts below are not deprived of
jurisdiction to render judgment thereon. Courts must
resolve the issue of possession even if the parties to the
ejectment suit are mere informal settlers. Villondo vs.
Quijano, G.R. No. 173606, December 3, 2012
As a general rule, prior demand to pay is a jurisdictional
requirement under Rule 70. Possession of a property belonging
to another may be tolerated or permitted, even without a prior
contract between the parties, as long as there is an implied
promise that the occupant will vacate upon demand. Refusal to
vacate despite demand will give rise to an action for summary
ejectment. Thus, prior demand is a jurisdictional requirement
before an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be
instituted. Under Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, an action for unlawful detainer may be brought
against a possessor of a property who unlawfully withholds
possession after the termination or expiration of the right to hold
possession. Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
requires that there must first be a prior demand to pay or comply
with the conditions of the lease and to vacate before an action
can be filed. Cruz vs. Christensen, 842 SCRA 65, G.R. No. 205539,
October 4, 2017
Prior Demand is unnecessary when the complaint is premised on
the expiration of lease.

The property in this case is owned by petitioner. Respondents had a

month-to-month lease with petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest.
Petitioner contends that no prior demand was necessary in this case
since her Complaint was premised on the expiration of respondents’
lease, not on the failure to pay rent due or to comply with the
conditions of the lease. The jurisdictional requirement of prior
demand is unnecessary if the action is premised on the termination
of lease due to expiration of the terms of contract. The complaint
must be brought on the allegation that the lease has expired and the
lessor demanded the lessee to vacate, not on the allegation that the
lessee failed to pay rents. The cause of action which would give rise
to an ejectment case would be the expiration of the lease. Thus, the
requirement under Rule 70, Section 2 of a prior “demand to pay or
comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate” would be
unnecessary. Cruz vs. Christensen, G.R. No. 205539, October 4, 2017
The issue of ownership can be resolved provisionally if inseparably linked to
possession. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that where the
issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, adjudication of
the issue on ownership is not final and binding, but merely for the purpose of
resolving the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership is
only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving
title to the property. In an ejectment case, questions as to the validity of the
title cannot be resolved definitively. A separate action to directly attack the
validity of the title must be filed, as was in fact filed by petitioner, to fully thresh
out as to who possesses a valid title over the subject property. Thus, any ruling
on ownership that was passed upon in the ejectment case is not and should not
be binding on Civil Case No. 00-11133. Tiña vs. Sta. Clara Estate, Inc., G.R. No.
239979, February 17, 2020, J. Hernando
Any judgment in an ejectment case will not amount to res judicata in a
collection case. The only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of physical
possession of the property. Thus, in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases,
the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property.
Hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff
could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the
use and occupation of the property. On the other hand, in a civil suit for
collection of sum of money, what is sought to be recovered is the payment of
rentals only without regard to the unlawfulness of the occupancy. Both issues
may be decided by the courts wherein they are pending. However, any
amount that the victor may have recovered in the ejectment suit due to the
damage caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, may no
longer be recovered in the Collection Case on the ground of unjust
enrichment. Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. vs. Mabalacat Institute,
Inc., G.R. No. 211563, September 29, 2021, J. Hernando
A boundary dispute must be resolved in an accion reivindicatoria, not
ejectment. The case should be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a
non-summary action like accion reivindicatoria. The CA correctly held that a
boundary dispute must be resolved in the context of accion reivindicatoria,
not an ejectment case. The boundary dispute is not about possession, but
encroachment, that is, whether the property claimed by the defendant
formed part of the plaintiff’s property. A boundary dispute cannot be settled
summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the proceedings under which
are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry. In unlawful detainer, the
defendant unlawfully withholds the possession of the premises upon the
expiration or termination of his right to hold such possession under any
contract, express or implied. The defendant’s possession was lawful at the
beginning, becoming unlawful only because of the expiration or termination
of his right of possession. In forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is
illegal from the very beginning, and the issue centers on which between the
plaintiff and the defendant had the prior possession de facto. Manalang vs.
Bacani, G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015
CONTEMPT (RULE 71)
Contempt proceedings may be criminal or civil in nature. If the purpose is to
vindicate and protect the dignity of this Court's authority, the contempt is
criminal. But if the purpose is to punish one party for failing to comply with
a court's order benefiting the other party, the contempt is civil. Contempt of
court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public
authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to,
the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of, its
proceedings by disorderly behaviour or insolent language in its presence or
so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to
such a body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends
a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase
contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a
variety of different acts. Courts have the power to punish for contempt in
order to preserve order in judicial proceedings, enforce its judgments,
orders, and mandates. Ultimately, they have the power to administer
justice. Bank of Commerce vs Joaquin T. Borromeo, G.R. No. 205632, June 2,
2020
Difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt.

Civil contempt is committed when a party fails to comply with an

order of a court or judge for the benefit of the other party. A
criminal contempt is committed when a party acts against the
court’s authority and dignity or commits a forbidden act tending to
disrespect the court or judge. Civil contempt proceedings seek to
compel the contemnor to obey a court order, judgment, or decree
which he or she refuses to do for the benefit of another party. It is
for the enforcement and the preservation of a right of a private
party, who is the real party-in-interest in the proceedings. The
purpose of the contemnor’s punishment is to compel obedience
to the order. Thus, civil contempt is not treated like a criminal
proceeding and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary to
prove it. Oca vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 199825, July 26, 2017
Appeal of decision dismissing civil contempt is not
barred by double jeopardy.

While the reliefs prayed for by respondents are a combination of both

criminal and civil punishment, the nature of the contempt proceeding
in this case is more civil than criminal. Clearly, the purpose of the
contempt petition was for the enforcement of the September 25, 2008
WPI. It is a remedy resorted to preserve and enforce the rights of
respondents and to compel obedience to the injunctive writ which was
issued for their benefit. Hence, the petition for contempt is civil in
nature. Accordingly, an appeal from the decision dismissing the same
is not barred by double jeopardy. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc.
vs. La Filipina Uygongco Corp., G.R. Nos. 240984 & 241120, September
27, 2021, J. Hernando
The RTC has jurisdiction over an indirect contempt case against a quasi-
judicial body.

Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal in

stating that, with respect to contumacious acts committed against quasi-
judicial bodies such as the HLURB, it is the regional trial court of the
place where the contemptuous acts have been committed, and not the
Court, that acquires jurisdiction over the indirect contempt case. There
is absolutely no basis under the Rules of Court to support the Spouses
Nicolas’ theory that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over a case for
indirect contempt allegedly committed against a quasi-judicial body just
because the decision of the said quasi-judicial body is pending appeal
before the Court of Appeals. To the contrary, the Rules of Court
unambiguously state that it is the regional trial courts that have
jurisdiction to hear and decide indirect contempt cases involving
disobedience of quasi-judicial entities. Rodriguez vs. Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), G.R. No. 183324, June 19, 2019
END.