I. Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 - 71) Ordinary Civil Actions Versus Special Civil Actions
I. Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 - 71) Ordinary Civil Actions Versus Special Civil Actions
2.
3.
4.
5.
(b)
Contempt
Special civil actions initiated by filing of a Complaint:
1.
Interpleader;
2.
Expropriation;
3.
4.
Partition; and
5.
declaratory relief(Untied Residents of Dominican Hill vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,
353 SCRA 782; Ortega vs. Quezon City Government, 469 SCRA 388).
The subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and the same; and
(4)
When to file
(1)
Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person who
claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by
the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and
litigate their several claims among themselves (Sec. 1).
Deed;
(b)
Will;
(c)
(d)
Statute;
(e)
(f)
Ordinance; or
(g)
Any other governmental regulation (Sec. 1).
(3)
The petition for declaratory relief is filed before there occurs any breach or violation of the deed,
contract, statute, ordinance or executive order or regulation. It will not prosper when brought after a
contract or a statute has already been breached or violated. If there has already been a breach, the
appropriate ordinary civil action and not declaratory relief should be filed.
The terms of said document or the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
(3)
(4)
There must be actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one( there is threatened
litigation the immediate future); there must be allegation of any threatened, imminent and inevitable
violation of petitioners right sought to be prevented by the declaratory relief sought;
(5)
(6)
The issue must be ripe for judicial determination e.g. administrative remedies already exhausted;
(7)
The party seeking the relief has legal interest in the controversy; and
(8)
(9)
(a)
(b)
(c)
The party seeking the relief must have legal interest in the controversy; and
(d)
The issue is ripe for judicial determination (Republic vs. Orbecido III, 472 SCRA 114).
A decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action; or
(b)
The declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the circumstances as when the
instrument or the statute has already been breached (Sec. 5).
(4)
In declaratory relief, the court is given the discretion to act or not to act on the petition. It may
therefore choose not to construe the instrument sought to be construed or could refrain from declaring the
rights of the petitioner under the deed or the law. A refusal of the court to declare rights or construe an
instrument is actually the functional equivalent of the dismissal of the petition.
(5)
On the other hand, the court does not have the discretion to refuse to act with respect to actions
described as similar remedies. Thus, in an action for reformation of an instrument, to quiet or to consolidate
ownership, the court cannot refuse to render a judgment (Sec. 5).
(b)
(c)
Reformation of an instrument
(1)
It is not an action brought to reform a contract but to reform the instrument evidencing the contract.
It presupposes that there is nothing wrong with the contract itself because there is a meeting of minds
between the parties. The contract is to be reformed because despite the meeting of minds of the parties as
to the object and cause of the contract, the instrument which is supposed to embody the agreement of the
parties does not reflect their true agreement by reason of mistake, inequitable conduct or accident. The
action is brought so the true intention of the parties may be expressed in the instrument (Art. 1359, CC).
(2)
The instrument may be reformed if it does not express the true intention of the parties because of
lack of skill of the person drafting the instrument (Art. 1363, CC). If the parties agree upon the mortgage or
pledge of property, but the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a right of
repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper (Art. 1365, CC).
(3)
Where the consent of a party to a contract has been procured by fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, and an instrument was executed by the parties in accordance with the contract, what is defective
is the contract itself because of vitiation of consent. The remedy is not to bring an action for reformation of
the instrument but to file an action for annulment of the contract (Art. 1359, CC).
(4)
Reformation of the instrument cannot be brought to reform any of the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Consolidation of ownership
(1)
The concept of consolidation of ownership under Art. 1607, Civil Code, has its origin in the substantive
provisions of the law on sales. Under the law, a contract of sale may be extinguished either by legal
redemption (Art. 1619) or conventional redemption (Art. 1601). Legal redemption (retracto legal) is a
statutory mandated redemption of a property previously sold. For instance, a co-owner of a property may
exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or any of them are sold to a
third person (Art. 1620). The owners of adjoining lands shall have the right of redemption when a piece of
rural land with a size of one hectare or less is alienated (Art. 1621). Conventional redemption (pacto de
retro) sale is one that is not mandated by the statute but one which takes place because of the stipulation of
the parties to the sale. The period of redemption may be fixed by the parties in which case the period cannot
exceed ten (10) years from the date of the contract. In the absence of any agreement, the redemption
period shall be four (4) years from the date of the contract (Art. 1606). When the redemption is not made
within the period agreed upon, in case the subject matter of the sale is a real property, Art. 1607 provides
that the consolidation of ownership in the vendee shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a
judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard.
(2)
The action brought to consolidate ownership is not for the purpose of consolidating the ownership of
the property in the person of the vendee or buyer but for the registration of the property. The lapse of the
redemption period without the seller a retro exercising his right of redemption, consolidates ownership or
title upon the person of the vendee by operation of law. Art. 1607 requires the filing of the petition to
consolidate ownership because the law precludes the registration of the consolidated title without judicial
order (Cruz vs. Leis, 327 SCRA 570).
Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolution of the COMELEC and COA (Rule 64)
(1)
A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit
may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court oncertiorari under Rule 65 (Sec. 2). The filing
of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to
be reviewed, unless the SC directs otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just (Sec. 8). To prevent the
execution of the judgment, the petitioner should obtain a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction because the mere filing of a petition does not interrupt the course of the principal
case.
(2)
Decisions of the Civil Service Commission shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals which has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all judgments or final orders of such commission (RA 7902).
(3)
The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or
final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt
the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the
remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of
denial (Sec. 3).
(4)
Note that petition for review from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies to the CA should be within 15
days and does not stay the decision appealed. Petition for review from decisions of the RTC decided in its
appellate jurisdiction filed to the CA should be filed within 15 days and stays execution, unless the case is
under the rules of Summary Procedure. Special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, from
Comelec and COA should be filed within 30 days, and does not stay the decision appealed. Bottomline:
Decisions of quasi-judicial bodies are not stayed by appeal alone. Decisions of regular courts are stayed on
appeal. Although in petition for review on certiorari to the SC via Rule 45, there is no express provision on
effect of appeal on execution.
(2)
The not less than 5 days provision for filing a pleading applies only to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
filing an special civil action for certiorari from a decision of the Comelec or CoA after denial of a MfR or
MNT. It does not apply to filing appeal from decisions of other entities after denial of a MfR or MNT. In such
cases, either the parties have a fresh 15 days, or the balance.
Rule 64
Rule 65
Directed only to the judgments, final orders or resolutions of the Directed to any tribunal, board or officers
COMELEC and COA;
The filing of a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial The period within which to filed the petition
if allowed, interrupts the period for the filing of the petition for
the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be
(c)
(d)
(e)
When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority (Chua vs. CA, 344
SCRA 136).
Prohibition
Mandamus
to be done:
quasi-judicial or ministerial
tribunal, board or officer has acted functions, to desist from further (a)
without or in excess of its or his
or
(b)
ministerial duties
judicial functions
Object is to correct
Object is to prevent
Object is to compel
proceedings
proceedings
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse from a right or office
discretion
of discretion
Prohibition
Always the main action
Injunction
May be the main action or just a provisional remedy
Mandamus
To compel an act desired
May be directed against entities exercising judicial or May be directed against judicial and non-judicial
quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions
entities
Mandamus
Quo warranto
Requisites
Certiorari
That the petition is directed
Prohibition
The petition is directed against a
Mandamus
The plaintiff has a clear legal right to
the act demanded;
excess or jurisdiction
law;
enjoined by law;
Injunctive relief
(1)
The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also
grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of
the parties pending such 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 against the public
respondent from further proceeding in the case (Sec. 7).
(2)
The public respondent shall 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 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the
principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge (AM 07-7-12-SC, Dec. 12, 2007).
reasons
Parties are the original parties with the appealing party The tribunal, board, officer exercising judicial or quasi-
(1)
The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. The
antithetic character of appeal and certiorari has been generally recognized and observed save only on those
rare instances when appeal is satisfactorily shown to be an inadequate remedy. Thus, a petitioner must
show valid reasons why the issues raised in his petition for certiorari could not have been raised on
appeal (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. CA, 334 SCRA 305).
Prohibition and Mandamus distinguished from Injunction; when and where to file petition
Prohibition
Prohibition is an extraordinary writ
Mandamus
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ
Injunction
Main action for injunction seeks to
commanding a tribunal, corporation, commanding a tribunal, corporation, enjoin the defendant from the
board or person, whether exercising board or person, to do an act
commission or continuance of a
(a)
When he unlawfully
discretion, there being no appeal or speedy and adequate remedy in the future wrongs in order to preserve
any other plain, speedy and
(b)
action.
To prevent an encroachment,
jurisdiction;
non-judicial entities
or ministerial functions
Extends to discretionary functions
resides.
respondent resides.
respondent resides.
(4)
When order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction or there was no due
process;
(5) When questions have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court;
(6) When is urgent necessity for the resolution of the question;
(7) When Motion for Reconsideration would be useless, e.g. the court already indicated it would deny any
Motion for Reconsideration;
(8) In a criminal case, where relief from order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial
court is improbable;
(9) Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object;
(10) When petitioner is deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for urgent relief; and
(11) When issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved;
Commission on Elections
(1)
A petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds because as long as the respondent
acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more
than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected by appeal (Microsoft Corp. vs. Best Deal
Computer Center Corp., GR 148029, Sept. 24, 2002; Estrera vs. CA, GR 154235, Aug. 16, 2006).
office;
office;
Filed within one (1) year from the time the cause of
or position arose;
Petitioner is the person entitled to the office;
The court has to declare who the person entitled to the When the tribunal declares the candidate-elect as
office is if he is the petitioner.
5). Accordingly, the private person may maintain the action without the intervention of the Solicitor General
and without need for any leave of court (Navarro vs. Gimenez, 10 Phil. 226; Cui vs. Cui, 60 Phil. 37). In
bringing a petition for quo warranto, he must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly being held
by another (Cuevas vs. Bacal, 347 SCRA 338). It is not enough that he merely asserts the right to be
appointed to the office.
State with certainty the right of the plaintiff to expropriation and the purpose thereof;
(b)
(c)
Join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part of the property or
interest therein showing as far as practicable the interest of each defendant. If the plaintiff cannot with
accuracy identify the real owners, averment to that effect must be made in the complaint (Sec. 1).
Two stages in every action for expropriation
(1)
Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to expropriate this includes an inquiry into the
propriety of the expropriation, its necessity and the public purpose. This stage will end in the issuance of an
order of expropriation if the court finds for the plaintiff or in the dismissal of the complaint if it finds
otherwise.
(2)
Determination of just compensation through the court-appointed commissioners(National Power
Corporation vs. Joson, 206 SCRA 520).
When plaintiff can immediately enter into possession of the real property, in relation to RA 8974
(1)
Except for the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure
project through expropriation, the expropriator shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of
the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to
the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of
the court. such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a
certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized
government depositary(Sec. 2, Rule 67).
New system of immediate payment of initial just compensation
(1)
For the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure project
through expropriation, upon the filing of 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 (1) 100 percent of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR; and
(2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Sec. 7 of RA 8974 (Sec. 4, RA
8974).
Defenses and objections
(1)
Omnibus Motion Rule Subject to the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading,
order, judgment or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included
shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8, Rule 15).
(2)
If a defendant has no objection or defense to the action or the taking of his property, he may file and
serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or identifying the
property in which he claims to be interested, within the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be
entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same.
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or
defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The
answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the
nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his
property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or
any subsequent pleading.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the court, in the interest of justice, may
permit amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However,
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 (Sec. 3)..
Order of Expropriation
(1)
If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are
overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of
expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated,
for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be
determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any party aggrieved
thereby. Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be
paid.
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).
Ascertainment of just compensation
(1)
The order of expropriation merely declares that the plaintiff has the lawful to expropriate the property
but contains no ascertainment of the compensation to be paid to the owner of the property. So upon the
rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) commissioners to
ascertain the just compensation for the property. Objections to the appointment may be made within 10
days from service of the order of appointment (Sec. 5). The commissioners are entitled to fees and their
fees shall be taxed as part of the costs of the proceedings, and all costs shall be paid by the plaintiff except
those costs of rival claimants litigating their claims (Sec. 12).
(2)
Where the principal issue is the determination of just compensation, a hearing before the
commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation.
Although the findings of the commissioners may be disregarded and the trial court may substitute its own
estimate of the value, the latter may do so only for valid reasons, that is where the commissioners have
applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, where they have disregarded a clear
preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive.
Appointment of Commissioners; Commissioners report; Court action upon commissioners report
(1)
Appointment. 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 sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall designate the time
and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and specify the time within
which their report shall be submitted to the court.
Copies of the order shall be served on the parties. Objections to the appointment of any of the
commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten (10) days from service, and shall be resolved within
thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall have received copies of the objections (Sec. 5).
(2)
Proceedings. Before entering upon the performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take and
subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in
court with the other proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party before the
commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners
shall, unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties to attend, view and examine
the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same, after which either
party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The commissioners shall assess the consequential
damages to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits
to be derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its
franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the
property. 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).
(3)
Report. The court may order the commissioners to report when any particular portion of the real
estate shall have been passed upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partial report, and direct
the commissioners to proceed with their work as to subsequent portions of the property sought to be
expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such property. The commissioners shall make a full
and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be effectual until
the court shall have accepted their report and rendered judgment in accordance with their
recommendations. Except as otherwise expressly ordered by the court, such report shall be filed within sixty
(60) days from the date the commissioners were notified of their appointment, which time may be extended
in the discretion of the court. Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of the court shall serve copies thereof
on all interested parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days within which to file objections to the
findings of the report, if they so desire (Sec. 7).
(4)
Action upon the report. Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding
section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their
objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the
report and render judgment in accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may recommit the same to the
commissioners for further report of facts; or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or
it may accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make such order or render such judgment
as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the
defendant just compensation for the property so taken (Sec. 8).
Rights of plaintiff upon judgment and payment
(1)
After payment of the just compensation as determined in the judgment, the plaintiff shall have the
right to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate the same for the public use or purpose
defined in the judgment or to retain possession already previously made in accordance with Sec. 2, Rule 67.
(2)
Title to the property expropriated passes from the owner to the expropriator upon full payment of just
compensation (Federated Realty Corp. vs. CA, 477 SCRA 707).
(c)
An order that the amount found due be paid to the court or to the judgment obligee within the period
of not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from the entry of judgment; and
(d)
An admonition that in default of such payment the property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy
the judgment (Sec. 2).
(2)
The judgment of the court on the above matters is considered a final adjudication of the case and
hence, is subject to challenge by the aggrieved party by appeal or by other post-judgment remedies.
(3)
The period granted to the mortgagor for the payment of the amount found due by the court is not just
a procedural requirement but s substantive right given by law to the mortgagee as his first chance to save
his property from final disposition at the foreclosure sale (De Leon vs. Ibaez, 95 Phil. 119).
(3)
The order of confirmation is appealable and if not appealed within the period for appeal becomes final.
Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the expiration of the period of redemption when
allowed by law, the purchaser at the auction sale or last redemptioner, if any, shall be entitled to the
possession of the property and he may secure a writ of possession, upon, motion, from the court which
ordered the foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding the same adversely to the judgment
obligor (Sec. 3).
Deficiency judgment
(1)
If there be a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon
motion, shall render judgment against the defendant for any such balance. Execution may issue immediately
if the balance is all due the plaintiff shall be entitled to execution at such time as the remaining balance shall
become due and such due date shall be stated in the judgment (Sec. 6). Note that the deficiency judgment
is in itself a judgment hence, also appealable.
(2)
No independent action need be filed to recover the deficiency from the mortgagor. The deficiency
judgment shall be rendered upon motion of the mortgagee. The motion must be made only after the sale
and after it is known that a deficiency exists. Before that, any court order to recover the deficiency is
void (Govt. of PI vs. Torralba, 61 Phil. 689). It has been held that the mortgagor who is not the debtor and
who merely executed the mortgage to secure the principal debtors obligation, is not liable for the deficiency
unless he assumed liability for the same in the contract(Philippine Trust Co. vs. Echaus Tan Siua, 52 Phil.
852). Since a deficiency judgment cannot be obtained against the mortgagore who is not the debtor in the
principal obligation, mortgagee may have to file a separate suit against the principal debtor.
No complaint is filed;
deficiency;
action
Right of Redemption
of judgment or even after the foreclosure sale but prior to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the
to confirmation.
subsequent lien holders are not impleaded as parties in equity of redemption which can be exercised prior to
the foreclosure suit, the judgment in favor of the
contrary rulings on the matter. A final order decreeing partition and accounting may be appealed by any
party aggrieved thereby.
(3)
Partition by agreement. The order of partition is one that directs the parties or co-owners to partition
the property and the parties may make the partition among themselves by proper instruments of
conveyance, if they agree among themselves. If they do agree, the court shall then confirm the partition so
agreed upon by all of the parties, and such partition, together with the order of the court confirming the
same, shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated (Sec. 2). There
always exists the possibility that the co-owners are unable to agree on the partition. If they cannot partition
the property among themselves, the next stage in the action will follow, the appointment of commissioners.
(2)
If the whole property is assigned to one of the parties upon his paying to the others the sum or sums
ordered by the court, the judgment shall state the fact of such payment and of the assignment of the real
estate to the party making the payment, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest in the party making
the payment the whole of the real estate free from any interest on the part of the other parties to the
action.
(3)
If the property is sold and the sale confirmed by the court, the judgment shall state the name of the
purchaser or purchasers and a definite description of the parcels of real estate sold to each purchaser, and
the effect of the judgment shall be to vest the real estate in the purchaser or purchasers making the
payment or payments, free from the claims of any of the parties to the action.
(4)
A certified copy of the judgment shall in either case be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place
in which the real estate is situated, and the expenses of such recording shall be taxed as part of the costs of
the action (Sec. 11).
Prescription of action
(1)
Prescription of action does not run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owner or co-heirs
as long as there is a recognition of the co-ownership expressly or impliedly (Art. 494).
(2)
The action for partition cannot be barred by prescription as long as the co-ownership exists (Aguirre
vs. CA, 421 SCRA 310).
(3)
But while the action to demand partition of a co-owned property does not prescribe, a co-owner may
acquire ownership thereof by prescription where there exists a clear repudiation of the co-ownership and the
co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership.
Unlawful Detainer
facto possession;
defendant to vacate;
jurisdictional in nature;
possession;
demand.
Accion Reinvindicatoria
An action for the recovery of the exercise of
right of possession (juridical possession), must be filed after the ownership, particularly recovery of possession
expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or as an attribute or incident of ownership;
from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. In
other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint more
than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff
out of possession or defendants possession had become illegal,
the action will be not one of forcible entry or unlawful detainer
but an accion publiciana (Valdez vs, CA, GR 132424, May 2,
2006).
The basis of the recovery of possession is the plaintiffs real
right of possession or jus possessionis, which is the right to the ownership itself.
possession of the real property independent of ownership.
(4)
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. The mere raising of the issue of tenancy
does not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the court is determined by
the allegations of the complaint and is not dependent upon the defenses set up by the defendant (Marino,
Jr. vs. Alamis, 450 SCRA 198 [2005]).
Who may institute the action and when; against whom the action may be maintained
(1)
Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any
land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one
(1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal
Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or
persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs (Sec.
1).
(2)
Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay
or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written
notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if
no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of
land or five (5) days in the case of buildings (Sec. 2).
Pleadings allowed
(1)
The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaint, compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
pleaded in the answer, and the answers thereto. All pleadings shall be verified (Sec. 4).
When the issue of possession cannot be resolved without resolving the issue of ownership; and
(b)
The issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession (Sec. 16).
Such judgment would not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building.
The resolution of the MeTC on the ownership of the property is merely provisional or interlocutory. Any
question involving the issue of ownership should be raised and resolved in a separate action brought
specifically to settle the question with finality (Roberts vs. Papio, GR 166714, Feb. 9, 2007).
How to stay the immediate execution of judgment
(1)
Defendant must take the following steps to stay the execution of the judgment:
(a)
Perfect an appeal;
(b)
File a supersedeas bond to pay for the rents, damages and costs accruing down to the time of the
judgment appealed from; and
(c)
Deposit periodically with the RTC, during the pendency of the appeal, the adjudged amount of rent
due under the contract or if there be no contract, the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the
premises (Sec. 19).
(2)
Exceptions to the rule:
(a)
Where delay in the deposit is due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence;
(b)
Where supervening events occur subsequent to the judgment bringing about a material change in the
situation of the parties which makes execution inequitable; and
(c)
Where there is no compelling urgency for the execution because it is not justified by the
circumstances.
(b)
(c)
Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(d)
(e)
Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
(f)
Memoranda;
(g)
Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h)
(i)
(j)
Reply;
(k)
(l)
Third-party complaints;
Interventions
(b)
Coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires him to uphold the power of the Court,
and also to secure the rights of the parties to a suit awarded by the Court (Regalado vs. Go, GR 167988,
Feb. 6, 2007).
Civil Contempt
Criminal Contempt
It is the failure to do something ordered to be done by It is a conduct directed against the authority and
a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party dignity of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an
therein and is therefore and offense against the party
party;
Direct Contempt
In general is committed in the presence of or so
Indirect Contempt
It is not committed in the presence of the court, but done at
near the court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt a distance which tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct or
the proceedings before it;
a)
Misbehavior in the presence of or so near the (a) Misbehavior an officer of a court in the performance of
before it;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
b)
c)
d)
answer as a witness;
e)
(e)
SCRA 32);
which the appeal is taken. This bond is conditioned upon his performance of the judgment or final order if
the appeal is decided against (Sec. 11).
Misbehavior an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act
of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of
any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the
possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting
direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration
of justice;
(e)
(f)
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an
order or process of a court held by him (Sec. 3).
(2) Failure by counsel to inform the court of the death of his client constitutes indirect contempt within the
purview of Sec. 3, Rule 71, since it constitutes an improper conduct tending to impede the administration of
justice.
When imprisonment shall be imposed
(1)
When the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the
respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of the court concerned until he performs it (Sec. 8).
Indefinite incarceration may be resorted to where the attendant circumstances are such that the noncompliance with the court order is an utter disregard of the authority of the court which has then no other
recourse but to use its coercive power. When a person or party is legally and validly required by a court to
appear before it for a certain purpose, and when that requirement is disobeyed, the only remedy left for the
court is to use force to bring the person or party before it.
(2)
The punishment is imposed for the benefit of a complainant or a party to a suit who has been injured
aside from the need to compel performance of the orders or decrees of the court, which the contemnor
refuses to obey although able to do so. In effect, it is within the power of the person adjudged guilty of
contempt to set himself free.