Notes on Rule 63: Declaratory Relief
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court covers two types of actions: [1] petition for declaratory relief, and; [2] similar remedies. The similar remedies referred to here are: [1] action for reformation of instrument; [2] action to quiet title; and, [3] action to consolidate ownership under Art; 1607 of the Civil Code.
I. JURISDICTION
A petition for declaratory relief should be brought “in the appropriate regional trial court.” The purpose of the petition is to ask the court to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the subject matter thereof , and for the declaration of rights and duties thereunder. Hence, the subject matter of such petition raises issues which are not capable of pecuniary estimation and must be filed in the RTC (Sec. 19 [1], BP 129; Sec. 1, Rule 63). It would be error to file the petition the petition with the Supreme Court which has no original jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief.
However, where the action is for quieting of title which is a similar remedy under the second paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 63, the jurisdiction will depend upon the assessed value of the property.
Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 is erroneous. Actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."
II. ASSESSED VALUE
Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, is clear that the RTC shall exercise jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)." The law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed. In this case, there is no dispute that the assessed values of the subject properties as shown by their tax declarations are less than P20,000.00. Clearly, jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC.
Please note the case of Sabitsana v. Muertegui which clarified matters re Rule 63.
III. WHEN TO FILE & WHY FILE
Under Section 1, Rule 63, a person must file a petition for declaratory relief before breach or violation of a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation. Petitioners’ actual suspension of payments defeated the purpose of the action to secure an authoritative declaration of their supposed right to suspend payment, for their guidance. The purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc., for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach. Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or the other party, there is nothing more for the court to explain or clarify, short of a judgment or final order.
[1] Ortega vs. Quezon City Government, G.R. No. 161400, September 2, 2005;
[2] Concha, Sr. vs. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007;
[3] Martelino vs. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 160208, June 30, 2008;
[4] Quisumbing vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, December 8, 2008 En Banc;
[5] Ferrer vs. Roco, G.R. No. 174129, July 5, 2010;
[6] Republic of the Philippines vs. Mangotara, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010; and
[7] Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 176438, January 24, 2011.
I. JURISDICTION
A petition for declaratory relief should be brought “in the appropriate regional trial court.” The purpose of the petition is to ask the court to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the subject matter thereof , and for the declaration of rights and duties thereunder. Hence, the subject matter of such petition raises issues which are not capable of pecuniary estimation and must be filed in the RTC (Sec. 19 [1], BP 129; Sec. 1, Rule 63). It would be error to file the petition the petition with the Supreme Court which has no original jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief.
However, where the action is for quieting of title which is a similar remedy under the second paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 63, the jurisdiction will depend upon the assessed value of the property.
Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 is erroneous. Actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."
II. ASSESSED VALUE
Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, is clear that the RTC shall exercise jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)." The law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed. In this case, there is no dispute that the assessed values of the subject properties as shown by their tax declarations are less than P20,000.00. Clearly, jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC.
Please note the case of Sabitsana v. Muertegui which clarified matters re Rule 63.
III. WHEN TO FILE & WHY FILE
Under Section 1, Rule 63, a person must file a petition for declaratory relief before breach or violation of a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation. Petitioners’ actual suspension of payments defeated the purpose of the action to secure an authoritative declaration of their supposed right to suspend payment, for their guidance. The purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc., for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach. Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or the other party, there is nothing more for the court to explain or clarify, short of a judgment or final order.
IV. BEFORE BREACH
Gov. Garcia’s petition for declaratory relief should have been dismissed because it was instituted after the COA had already found her in violation of Sec. 22(c) of R.A. No. 7160. One of the important requirements for a petition for declaratory relief under Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court is that it be filed before breach or violation of a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation. Thus, 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. Nonetheless, the conversion of the petition into an ordinary civil action is warranted under Sec. 6, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.The requisites of an action for declaratory relief are:
[1] The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or 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 interests are adverse;
[5] The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
[6] Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.
Gov. Garcia’s petition for declaratory relief should have been dismissed because it was instituted after the COA had already found her in violation of Sec. 22(c) of R.A. No. 7160. One of the important requirements for a petition for declaratory relief under Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court is that it be filed before breach or violation of a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation. Thus, 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. Nonetheless, the conversion of the petition into an ordinary civil action is warranted under Sec. 6, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.The requisites of an action for declaratory relief are:
[1] The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or 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 interests are adverse;
[5] The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
[6] Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.
V. DIFFERENCE FROM INJUNCTION
There is a marked difference between the reliefs sought under an action for declaratory relief and an action for injunction. While an action for declaratory relief seeks a declaration of rights or duties, or the determination of any question or validity arising under a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation, or under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, under which his rights are affected, and before breach or violation, an action for injunction ultimately seeks to enjoin or to compel a party to perform certain acts.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
The concept of a cause of action in ordinary civil actions does not apply to quieting of title. In declaratory relief, the subject-matter is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance. The issue is the validity or construction of these documents. The relief sought is the declaration of the petitioner’s rights and duties thereunder. Being in the nature of declaratory relief, this special civil action presupposes that there has yet been no breach or violation of the instruments involved.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
The concept of a cause of action in ordinary civil actions does not apply to quieting of title. In declaratory relief, the subject-matter is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance. The issue is the validity or construction of these documents. The relief sought is the declaration of the petitioner’s rights and duties thereunder. Being in the nature of declaratory relief, this special civil action presupposes that there has yet been no breach or violation of the instruments involved.
Read more:
[1] Ortega vs. Quezon City Government, G.R. No. 161400, September 2, 2005;
[2] Concha, Sr. vs. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007;
[3] Martelino vs. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 160208, June 30, 2008;
[4] Quisumbing vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, December 8, 2008 En Banc;
[5] Ferrer vs. Roco, G.R. No. 174129, July 5, 2010;
[6] Republic of the Philippines vs. Mangotara, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010; and
[7] Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 176438, January 24, 2011.
