Rule 63 (2/4) Finals

Question 1

An action for DR seeking the court to declare his filiation & consequently his hereditary rights.

Is it proper?

Answer 1

No, the action is not based on a deed, will, statute, or any of the exclusive list enumerated as the subject matter of the petition

Question 2

DR seeking judicial declaration of citizenship to correct a previous unilateral registration by the petitioner as an alien

Answer 2

Improper. The action is not founded on a deed, contract, or any ordinance

Question 3

There is ambiguity in the judgment rendered against A. He petitions for DR seeking clarification. Is it proper?

Answer 3

No, the proper remedy is to move for clarificatory judgment. The subject matter of a Court Decision (local) cannot be interpreted w/in the purview of “other written instrument”

Question 4

A case is filed & styled as a petition for certiorari but seeks the declaration by the SC of the unconstitutionality & illegality of the questioned rule which partakes of a DR, not certiorari.

Is this proper insofar as JD is concerned?

Answer 4

No, the SC has no OG JD over a petition for DR. It only has appellate JD over the petition

Question 5

accion reinvindicatoria

accion publiciana

Answer 5

[AR]
- based on ownership seeking both possession & title

[AP]
- based on better right to possess, regardless of ownership

Question 6

Is assessed value in an action for Consolidation of Ownership necessary in determining which court has JD over the action?

Answer 6

No, assessed value in this case should NOT be considered because the action does not involve recovery of title to [or] ownership of real property. (Cruz v. Leis 327 SCRA 570)

The action for consolidation of ownership is merely to obtain a judicial order to effect registration of the consolidated ownership in the Registry of Property, and not to acquire ownership or title over the property. IOW, it is NOT A REAL ACTION.

The RTC has JD over an action incapable of pecuniary estimation

Question 7

What are the issues that are raised in a petition for DR?

Answer 7

1. construction, or
2. validity of provisions in the instrument

Question 8

FACTS: The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) announced the impending imposition of VAT on toll fees collected by tollway operators. Concerned motorists and advocacy groups filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking declaratory relief, arguing that the imposition was unconstitutional and would adversely impact millions of motorists. The government countered that the petition should be dismissed, as the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction over declaratory relief, and petitioners had other remedies, such as an appeal to the Secretary of Finance. The petitioners, however, argued that resolving the issue urgently was necessary to prevent harm to the public.

The government sought reconsideration of the Court’s resolution, arguing that petitioners’ allegations clearly made out a case for declaratory relief, an action over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. The government added that the petition did not meet the requirements of Rule 65 for actions for prohibition since the BIR did not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or
ministerial functions when it sought to impose VAT on toll fees. Besides, the petitioners, argued the government, had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the BIR in the form of an appeal to the Secretary of Finance.

QUESTION:

• Is the petition for declaratory relief properly filed before the Supreme Court, and if not, may it be treated as a petition for prohibition under Rule 65?
• What are the precedents for treating a petition for DR as one for prohibition/mandamus?

Answer 8

[1]
No, since the SC has no OG JD over the petition for DR, that ground alone would dismiss it henceforth.

[2] Diaz v. Secretary of Finance, July 19, 2011)
1. Case has far-reaching implications, and
2. Raises questions that need to be resolved for the public good

note
1 - to dismiss the petition & resolve it later on could cause mischief both to the tax-paying public & gov’t which makes any attempt to refund motorist what they paid an adminstrative nightmare with no solution.

Question 9

LECTURE

Answer 9

LECTURE

Question 10

seeking no affirmative relief here at all (no damages, no delivery of things)

what are these other similar remedies?

Answer 10

reformation of instrument

quieting of title

action to consolidate ownership

Question 11

B obtained loan to A. They agreed for mortgage to secure the loan. The paper drafted was Pacto Directo, what is their remedy?

Answer 11

reformation of contract

Question 12

Gal bought property Gra and executed DOAS but Gra sold the same to Ter.

While Gal had possession of a DOAS. Ter too has DOAS.

whoever first registers his instrument becomes the owner of the property. what is the remedy?

but if Ter is not holding any document what is the remedy?

Answer 12

quieting of title.

[B]
_

Question 13

OCA Circ. No. 256-2022

Which Court can you file quieting of title?

Answer 13

not exceeding 400k, MTC, otherwise in the RTC.

Question 14

how about case for reformation [or] action to consolidate ownership of instrument involving the real property which is value less than 400k? does MTC have JD?

Answer 14

No, this is an action without pecuniary estimation as the property here is merely incidental and thus the value of the property is immaterial

Question 15

Requisites of DR

Question 16

Parties Involved

Question 17

Parents of A executed a last will and testament and the same had been probated during the lifetime.

it would be premature of A to question the testament wihle they are alive. Suppose they are dead and A discovered in the will that he was not given a share in the inheritance or he was disinherited left behind of the parents.

If no distribution and subject to partition still, then the proper recourse of A

but if had it been partitioned, what is the proer remedy

if parents bequeath the properties who are not relatives of A such as C D E and

Answer 17

[A]
DR

[B]
Nullification of Last will and etstament and delivery of his legitime and inheritance

[C]
CDE must be impleaded as they are indispensable parties and BIR.

Question 18

there are situations wher SolGen will rally with the applicant of DR.

ex. Petition for review, the SolGen can move for the acquittal of the accused. Like in DR, there are instances the SG would join with the plaintiff (Pp v. Vera)

Question 19

Ordinacen imposing curfew that even audlts are porhibited from roaming around after 9pm and you question saying it is unconsistutional

then you have to notify the SG

Question 20

Last will and testament > no distribution and delivery of those who have been executed as the heirs of parents of A, then DR is the remedy but if already made based on the will, then DR is no longer the remedy but the nullification of the will & delivery of the share

TN: you have to file BEFORE actual breach but a clear showing that there is impending or threatened breach.

Question 21

Bayan Tel v.
MMDA v. Viron Transporation

Answer 21

While both did not issue any rules and regulations

MMDA was already performing overt acts that would led to the closure

Question 22

can a court grant writ of execution in a DR?

Answer 22

GR: no as this case does not consider affirmative relief

XPN: check PPT