Edukasyon Online Your Online Education Portal

Civil Law (Conflict of Laws) Memory Aid

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.    Certiorari
2. Purpose – to correct an act performed by respondent;
3. Act sought to be controlled – discretionary acts;
4. Respondent – one who exercises judicial functions and acted with grave abuse of discretion or in lack or excess of jurisdiction.
5. Generally directed against an interlocutory order of the court prior to appeal from the judgment in the main case;
6. 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;
7. Unless a writ of preliminary injunction shall have issued, does NOT stay the challenged order;
8. Parties are the aggrieved parties against the lower court or quasi-judicial agency and the prevailing parties;
9. Motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent, subject to certain exceptions;
10. 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.    Prohibition
2.    Mandamus
3.    When SC allows the writ of certiorari even when appeal is available and proper:
4.    Cases where Motion for Reconsideration is NOT condition precedent for certiorari:
   1.    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.
5. Purpose – to prevent the commission or carrying out of an act;
6. Act sought to be controlled – discretionary and ministerial acts;
7. Respondent – one who exercises judicial or non-judicial functions.
8. Purpose – to compel the performance of the act desired;
9. Act sought to be controlled – ministerial act;
10. Respondent – one who performs judicial or non-judicial functions.
11. Appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;
12. Orders were issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
13. For certain special considerations, such as public welfare or policy;
14. Where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, as in acquittal;
15. Where the order is a patent nullity;
16. Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigation.
17. Order is a patent nullity;
18. 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;
19. Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government;
20. Under the circumstances, a motion for recon would be useless;
21. Petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
22. Where in a criminal case, relief from order or arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
23. Proceedings in the lower court are null for lack of due process;
24. Proceeding was ex parteor in which petitioner had no opportunity to object;
25. 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.    Quo Warranto distinguished from Election Contest:

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.    Forcible entry distinguished from Unlawful detainer

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.    Criminal contempt
2.    Civil Contempt
3.    Direct Contempt (contempt in facie curiae)
4.    Indirect Contempt
5. Purpose is to vindicate public authority;
6. Conduct directed against the dignity or authority of the court.
7. Purpose is to protect and enforce civil rights and remedies for the litigants;
8. Failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of a party.
9. Committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge;
10. Punished summarily without hearing;
11. 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.
12. Not committed in the presence of the court;
13. 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.

Comments:

• Law Reviewer