Boundary dispute does not involve a deed, will, contract or any written instrument
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, dealing with actions for declaratory relief, specifies in Section 1 thereof the grounds, conditions precedent or requisites for bringing such petitions. This Court has previously held that Under this rule, only a person who is interested `under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute or ordinance, may bring an action to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder. This means that the subject matter must refer to a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or to a statute or ordinance, to warrant declaratory relief. Any other matter not mentioned therein is deemed excluded. This is under the principle of expressio unius est exclussio alterius. Inasmuch as the enumeration of the causes, grounds or conditions precedent in the first paragraph of said Sec. 1 is exclusive, by parity of reasoning, it follows that similar remedies provided for in the second paragraph of the same section would also be marked with the same exclusivity as to bar any other cause possibly clouding ones title as a ground for such petitions. Thus, even assuming arguendo that the action to quiet title had been brought under Rule 64, the same would still not have prospered, the subject matter thereof not referring to a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or to a statute or ordinance, but to a boundary dispute, and therefore not warranting the grant of declaratory relief. [G.R. No. 95748. November 21, 1996]