REVIEWER: Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

RULE 63 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES

WHAT IS A DECLARATOTY RELIEF? (MEANING)

Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.

NOTE: The only issue that may be raised in such petition is question of construction or validity of the provisions in an instrument or statue.

WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES UNDER RULE 63?

The remedies under Rule 63 are as follows:

1. Declaratory relief;
2. An action for:

a.      The reformation of an instrument;

b.      To quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom; or

c.       To consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code.

HOW INITIATED?

By way of filing a petition for declaratory relief and other similar remedies.

WHO ARE THE PARTIES MAY FILE THE PETITION?

Those who may file petition for declaratory relief are:

1. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument; or
2. Whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or other governmental regulation.

WHEN AND WHERE (JURISDICTION) TO FILE?

As to jurisdiction;

Before breach or violation thereof bring an action appropriate Regional Trial Court.

NOTE:

1. If the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation jurisdiction is exclusively conferred to the Regional Trial Court.
2. A petition for declaratory relief is an action which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Thus, exclusive and original jurisdiction is with RTC.
3. However, the jurisdiction of RTC on petition for declaratory relief refers only to first paragraph of Rule 63 Section1.
4. The three remedies under the second paragraph are considered similar to declaratory relief because they also result in the adjudication of the legal rights, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into effect.
5. Jurisdiction for the action on the second paragraph depends on the assessed value of the property or claim.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AN ACTION FOR INTERPLEADER?

1. To determine any question of construction or validity arising; and
2. For declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF?

1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, contract, or other written instrument, statute, an executive order or regulation, or an ordinance;
2. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
3. There must have been no breach of the documents in question;
4. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons whose interest are adverse;
5. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
6. The adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms.

WHAT IS A JUDICIAL CONTROVERSY?

A judicial controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one is conjectural or merely anticipatory.

Ripening seeds – a dispute may be tried at its inception before it has a accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and violence of a full blown trial.

-        It describes a state of facts indicating imminent and inevitable litigation provided that the issue is not settled and stabilized by tranquilizing declaration.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY?

Without any justiciable controversy, the petition has become pleas   for declaratory relief, over which the court has no original jurisdiction.

 

WHAT IS THE EFFECT WHERE THE LAW OR CONTRACT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONTRAVENED?

Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action.

-      In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed before the institution of the action.

IS AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AFTER BREACH OBJECTIONABLE?

Yes. The Supreme Court held in the case of SARMIENTO V. CAPAPAS, that an action for declaratory relief after breach of a contract or statute is objectionable.

The institution of an action for declaratory relief after a breach of a contract or a statute, is objectionable on various grounds, among which is that it violates the rule on multiplicity of suits.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF DECLARATORY RELIEF?

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the action is:

1. to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc.; and
2. for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance.

NOTE:

1. Not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach.
2. It may be entertained ONLY BEFORE breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it refers.
3. Where the law or contact has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, he court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. Moreover, a cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or other party, thus, there is no more for the court to explain or clarify, short of a judgment or final order.

IS A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT PROPER WHEN THE MAIN CASE IS DECLARATORY RELIEF?

The Supreme Court held in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel, that a third-party complaint is not proper in declaratory relief. Furthermore, a third-party complaint is inconceivable when the main case is one for nothing more than a declaratory relief.

In a third-party complaint, the defendant or third party plaintiff is supposed to seek contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief from the third-party defendant in respect to the claim of the plaintiff against him.

CAN AN AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF BE GRANTED IN A COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF?

The Supreme Court sustained the grant of affirmative relief in a complaint for declaratory relief in the case of Adlawan v. IAC.

ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DECLARATORY RELIEF EXCLUSIVE?

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Matienzo v. Ortiz, the subject matter are exclusive.

First paragraph of Rule 63 Section 1 enumerates the subject matter to be inquired upon in a declaratory relief namely:

1. Deed;
2. Will;
3. Contract; or
4. Other written instrument;
5. Statute;
6. Executive order or regulation; or
7. Any government regulation.

IS PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO REMARRY A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF?

The Supreme Court explained in the case of Republic v. Obrecido , that a petition for authority to remarry actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief.

IS DECLARATORY RELIEF A REMEDY TO QUESTION ACTS WHICH ARE JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL?

NO. The Supreme Court said in Galicto v. Aquino, that declaratory relief is the proper remedy to question acts which are NOT judicial or quasi-judicial in nature.

WHAT KIND OF JURISDICTION DOES SUPREME COURT HAS ON ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF?

APPELLATE JURISDICTION. The Supreme Court ONLY has appellate, not original, jurisdiction as held in the case of Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila.

Article 8 Section 5 (2) of the Constitution provides:

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts:

a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation is in question.

Thus, Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over petition for a declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved.

SIMILAR REMEDIES:

1. On Reformation of Instruments.

-      The remedy of reformation of an instrument is grounded on the principle of equity where, in order to express the true intention of the contracting parties, an instrument already executed is allowed by law to be reformed.

-       The right of reformation is necessarily an invasion or limitation of the parol evidence rule.

Reason: When a writing is reformed, the result is that an oral agreement is by court decree made legally effective.

IS THERE ANY LIMITATION IN THE USE OF THIS REMEDY?

Yes. The remedy being an extraordinary one, must be subject to limitations as may be provided by law.

Among which is laches. Thus, a suit for reformation of an instrument may be barred by lapse of time.

The prescriptive period for actions based upon a written contract and for reformation of instrument is 10 years. (Article 1144) of the Civil Code.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT AND  ANNULMENT OF CONTRACT

Reformation of Instrument	Annulment of Contract
Presupposes a valid contract, existing contract, in which there had been a meeting of the minds of the parties but the instrument drawn up and sign by them does not correctly express the terms of their agreement.	Presupposes a defective contract in which the minds of the parties did not meet, or the consent of one is vitiated.
The equity of reformation is ordinarily limited to written agreements and its purpose is to establish and perpetuate agreement.	It is intended to declare the inefficiency which the contract already carries in itself and render the contract inefficacious.

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF REFORMATION?

In order that an action for reformation of instrument may prosper, the following requisites must concur:

1. There must have been meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract;
2. The instrument does not express the true intention of the parties; and
3. The failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.

ON WHOSE NSTANCE REFORMATION MAY BE ORDERED?

Reformation may be ordered at the instance of:

1. Either party or his successors-in-interest, if the mistake was mutual;
2. Otherwise, upon petition if the injured party, or his heirs and assigns

WHEN REFORMATION IS NOT PROPER?

Under Articles 1366 and 1367 of the Civil Code, there shall be no reformation in the following cases:

1. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
2. Will;
3. When the real agreement is void,
4. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its reformation.

2. Quieting of Title.

WHAT IS MEANING OF QUIETING OF TITLE?

 

Quieting of Title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property.

 

-       Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

-         The competent court is tasked:

1.      to determine the respective rights of the complainant and the other claimants;

2.      to place things in their proper places, and

3.      make the claimants, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and do not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce any desired improvements, as well as use, and even abuse the property.

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF QUIETING OF TITLE?

In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two requisites must concur:

1. the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
2. the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

 

3. Consolidation of Ownership

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 1607?

The Supreme Court explained in the case of Cruz v. Leis that the effect of non-compliance with Article 1607 which requires a judicial hearing before registration of the property in the name of the vendee a retro as follows:

 

Article 1607. In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of Article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without judicial order, after the vendor had been duly heard.

-         This Article intended to minimize the evils which the pacto de retro sale has caused in the hands of usurers.

-         A judicial order is necessary in order to determine the nature of the transaction and to prevent the interposition of buyers in good faith while the determination is being made.

NOTE:

1.      Notwithstanding Article 1607, the recording in the Registry of Property of the consolidation of ownership of the vendee is not a condition sine qua non to transfer of ownership of ownership.

2.      The essence of a pacto de retro sale is that the title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro, subject to a resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated period. Thus, failure of the vendor a retro to perform the said resolutory condition vests upon the vendee by operation of law absolute title and ownership over the property sold. As title is already vested in the vendee a retro, his failure to consolidate his title under Article 1607 does not impair such title or ownership for the method prescribed thereunder is merely for the purpose of registering the consolidated title.

IS HEARING REQUIRED IN JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF FORECLOSURE SALE?

Yes. The Supreme Court held that hearing is required in judicial confirmation of foreclosure sale.

In the case of Rural Bank of Oroquieta v. CA, the SC held that a foreclosure sale is not complete until it is confirmed and before said confirmation, the court retains control of the proceedings by exercising a sound discretion in regard to it, either by granting or withholding confirmation as the rights and interest of the parties and the end of justice may require

-       Moreover, in order that a foreclosure sale may be validly confirmed by the court, it is necessary that a hearing be given the interest of the parties, at which they may have an opportunity to show cause why the sale should not be confirmed.

-      The acceptance of a bid at the foreclosure sale confers no title on the purchaser. Until the sale has been validly confirmed by the court, he is nothing more than a preferred bidder. Title vests only when the sale has been validly confirmed by the court.

-        A hearing should be held for the confirmation of the sale. The mortgagor should be notified of the hearing. Lack of notice vitiates the confirmation of the sale. Thus the mortgagor may still redeem the mortgaged lot after the rendition of the order confirming the sale which is void for lack of hearing and notice to the mortgagor

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES?

Other persons who would be affected by the declaration, but were not impleaded as necessary parties, in which case the declaration shall not prejudice them.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO JOIN ALL NECESSARY PARTIES?

It would deprive the declaration of the final and pacifying function the action of declaratory relief is calculated to subserve, as they would not be bound by the declaration and may raise the identical issue.

WHEN TO NOTIFY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL?

If any action which involves the validity of a:

1. Statute:
2. executive order or regulation; or
3. any other governmental regulation.

WHO SHALL NOTIFY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL?

The party assailing the validity of a statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation and shall be entitled to be heard upon such question.

WHEN TO NOTIFY THE PROSECUTOR OR ATTORNEY FO RTHE LOCAL GOVERNMENT?

In any action involving the validity of a local government ordinance, the corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the local governmental unit shall be similarly notified and entitled to be heard.

WHEN TO NOTIFY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL?

If such ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor General shall also be notified and entitled to be heard.

WHEN COURT ACTION DISCRETIONARY?

The court, moto proprio or upon motion may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case:

1. where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which give rise to the action; or
2. in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the circumstances.

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE WHERE COURT ACTION IS DISCRETIONARY?

Except in cases involving:

1. The reformation of an instrument;
2. To quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom; or
3. To consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code

WHEN DECLARATORY RELIEF BE CONVERTED TO ORDINARY ACTION?

The action for declaratory relief may be converted into an ordinary action if before the final termination of the case, a breach or violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation should take place.

HOW CONVERTED?

The parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper.

WHEN CONVERSION OF DECLARATORY RELIEF INTO ORDINARY ACTION WARRANTED?

In Quisumbing v. Garcia, the Supreme Court sustained the conversion of the petition into an ordinary civil action on the basis of Rule 63 Section 6.

-       The Trial Court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the action despite the fact that the subject thereof had already been breached by Gov. Garcia prior to the filing of the action (DR.)

-        The conversion of the petition is warranted.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE?

In Martelino v. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, the Supreme Court did not allow the conversion of the petition of the declaratory relief and prohibition into an ordinary action because the respondents did not argue the point before the court.

REFERENCE: Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano, LLM; First Edition 2015