Rule 62 Interpleader

1. Interpleader

1. Original action
2. Presupposes that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the action or has an interest therein
which, in whole or part, is not disputed by the other parties to the action;
3. Complaint in interpleader must be answered 15 days from service of summons.
Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

1. Requisites for action for declaratory relief:

1. Subject matter of controversy is a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, statute, executive
order, or regulation, or ordinance;

à Court may refuse to adjudicate where decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which
gave rise to the action OR where the declaration is not necessary and proper at the time;

2. Terms and validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
3. No breach of the document, otherwise ordinary civil action is the remedy;

à Must be before breach is committed, as in the case where the petitioner paid under protest the fees
imposed by an ordinance. Declaratory relief still proper because the applicability of the ordinance to future
transactions still remains to be resolved, although the matter could be threshed out in an ordinary suit for
the recovery of the fees paid.

4. There is an actual justiciable controversy between persons whose interests are adverse;
5. The same is ripe for adjudication;
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.
Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and The
Commission on Audit
à For petition for review of judgments and final orders of the COMELEC and COA – period to file is 30 days
to be counted from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed and not from
the receipt of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration; the period to file petition is merely interrupted
by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration and continues to run again for the remaining period which
shall not be less than 5 days from notice of denial.
Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
1. 1. Certiorari
1. Purpose – to correct an act performed by respondent;
2. Act sought to be controlled – discretionary acts;
3. Respondent – one who exercises judicial functions and acted with grave abuse of discretion or in lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
4. Generally directed against an interlocutory order of the court prior to appeal from the judgment in the
main case;
 5. Need merely be filed seasonably (within 60 days), without undue delay and before the act, order, or
proceedings, sought to be reviewed or set aside has become fait accompli such that any reversal thereof
shall have become academic;
6. Unless a writ of preliminary injunction shall have issued, does NOT stay the challenged order;
7. Parties are the aggrieved parties against the lower court or quasi-judicial agency and the prevailing parties;
8. Motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent, subject to certain exceptions;
9. Higher court exercises original jurisdiction under its power of control and supervision over the orders of
lower courts.

à If CA reverses the judge, the latter may not go the SC via a petition for certiorari. He is merely a nominal
party, and he should not seek the reversal of a decision that is unfavorable to the action taken by him.

à Professional Regulation Commission vs. CA – It is well settled that the remedies of ordinary appeal and
certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. However, it has also been held that after a
judgment has been rendered and an appeal therefrom had been perfected, a petition for certiorari relating
to certain incidents therein may prosper where the appeal does not appear to be a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy. In this case, the SC noted that, while petitioners tried to justify their recourse to both an
appeal and to a petition for certiorari by claiming that their appeal would not constitute a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy, they did not see fit to withdraw or abandon said appeal after filing the petition. Thus,
both the CA and SC are reviewing the same decision of the RTC at the same time. Such a situation would
lead to absurdity and confusion in the ultimate disposition of the case.
1. 2. Prohibition
2. 3. Mandamus
3. 4. When SC allows the writ of certiorari even when appeal is available and proper:
4. 5. Cases where Motion for Reconsideration is NOT condition precedent for certiorari:
1. 6. The period for filing any of the 3 actions is not later than 60 days from notice of judgment,
order, or resolution sought to be reviewed.
1. Purpose – to prevent the commission or carrying out of an act;
2. Act sought to be controlled – discretionary and ministerial acts;
3. Respondent – one who exercises judicial or non-judicial functions.
1. Purpose – to compel the performance of the act desired;
2. Act sought to be controlled – ministerial act;
3. Respondent – one who performs judicial or non-judicial functions.
1. Appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;
2. Orders were issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
3. For certain special considerations, such as public welfare or policy;
4. Where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, as in acquittal;
5. Where the order is a patent nullity;
6. Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigation.
1. Order is a patent nullity;
2. Questions raised in the certiorari proceeding were duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are
the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
 3. Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of
the government;
4. Under the circumstances, a motion for recon would be useless;
5. Petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
6. Where in a criminal case, relief from order or arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial
court is improbable;
7. Proceedings in the lower court are null for lack of due process;
8. Proceeding was ex parte or in which petitioner had no opportunity to object;
9. Issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
à In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the
60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. (SC Circular 56-
2000, effective September 1, 2000)
à No extension of time to file the petition shall be
granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. (SC Circular 56-2000)
Rule 66 Quo Warranto
1. 1. Quo Warranto distinguished from Election Contest:

Quo Warranto
Basis is that occupant is disqualified from
holding office by reason of ineligibility or
disloyalty
Election Contest
Challenge rights of a person to hold office on the
ground of irregularities in the conduct of the
election

If successful, respondent is ousted but petitioner

shall not automatically assume the office Successful protestant will assume office if he had
vacated obtained plurality of valid votes

Rule 67 Expropriation
1. In expropriation, the complaint must be verified.
2. The defendant can only file an answer instead of a motion to dismiss
1. The final order of expropriation is appealable, but the lower court may determine the just
compensation to be paid.

à The power of eminent domain is exercised by the filing of a complaint which shall join as defendants all
persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any party of the expropriated land or interest therein. If a
known owner is not joined as defendant, he is entitled to intervene in the proceedings; or if he is joined but
not served with process and the proceeding is already closed before he came to know of the condemnation,
he may maintain an independent suit for damages.

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

1. 1. Forcible entry distinguished from Unlawful detainer

Forcible entry Unlawful detainer

 Possession of land is unlawful from the Possession of defendant is inceptively lawful but
beginning due to force, intimidation, threat, becomes illegal by reason of termination of right
strategy or stealth of possession

No requirement of previous demand for

defendant to vacate premises Demand is jurisdictional

Plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical

possession until he was deprived thereof by Plaintiff need not have been in prior physical
defendant possession

1-year period counted from date of actual entry

or when plaintiff learned thereof. 1-year period from date of last demand

2. When prior demand in unlawful detainer actions not required;

1. When purpose of action is to terminate lease because of expiry of term and not because of failure to pay
rental or to comply with terms of lease contract;
2. Purpose of suit is not for ejectment but for enforcement of terms of contract;
3. When defendant is not a tenant but a pure intruder

à In all other cases, there must be a demand:

1. To pay or to comply with the conditions of the lease; AND

2. To vacate by written notice on the person in the premises or by posting such notice on the premises if no
person is found thereon and this is a condition precedent to the filing of the case; ORAL demand is not
permitted.
1. If demand is in the alternative (pay OR vacate), this is NOT the demand contemplated by the Rules.

3. When the defendant raises the issue of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot
be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the latter issue shall be resolved only to determine the
issue of possession.

à A forcible entry/unlawful detainer action has an entirely different subject matter from that of an action for
reconveyance. The former involves material possession, and the latter, ownership. Thus, the pendency of
an action for reconveyance does not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction over an action for FE/UD, nor will it
preclude execution of judgment in the ejectment case where the only issue involved is material possession.

Rule 71 Contempt
1. 1. Criminal contempt
2. 2. Civil Contempt
3. 3. Direct Contempt (contempt in facie curiae)
4. 4. Indirect Contempt
1. Purpose is to vindicate public authority;
2. Conduct directed against the dignity or authority of the court.
1. Purpose is to protect and enforce civil rights and remedies for the litigants;
2. Failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of a party.
1. Committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge;
2. Punished summarily without hearing;
3. No appeal may be taken but the party adjudged in contempt may avail himself of actions of certiorari or
prohibition which shall stay the execution of the judgment, provided a bond fixed by the court is filed.
1. Not committed in the presence of the court;
2. Punished only after hearing – complaint in writing or motion or party or order of court requiring person to
appear and explain, opportunity to appear and show cause.