DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 ALMEDA v. BATHALA MARKETING INDUSTRIES

FACTS:
1. Bathala, as lessee, represented by Garcia, renewed its
Contract of Lease with Ponciano Almeda, as lessor.
2. Under the contract, Ponciano agreed to lease a portion
of the Almeda Compound for a monthly rental (P1M+)
for four years unless terminated sooner.
3. The contract of lease provided (conditions 6 and 7,
respectively):
a. Rental rate is based on the rate of assessment
on the property and in case it increases, or any
new tax or burden be imposed by authorities,
the LESSEE shall pay the additional rental and
charge corresponding to the portion leased. That
in the event that the assessment be reduced,
lessee shall be entitled to the reduction.
b. In case of extraordinary inflation or devaluation
of the Phil. Currency, the value of the Peso at
the time of the establishment of the obligation
shall be the basis of payment.
4. During the effectivity of the contract, Ponciano died.
5. The Almedas (wife and son of Pociano) informed
Bathala that they will collect VAT on its monthly
rentals.
6. Bathala: VAT may not be imposed because the rentals
fixes in the contract already included VAT.
7. Another letter was sent to Bathala informing him that
the monthly rental should be increased by 73%
because of extraordinary inflation.
8. Bathala refused to pay VAT and adjusted rentals as
demanded but continued to pay the amount in the
contract.
9. Bathala instituted an action for declaratory relief for
purposes of determining the correct interpretation of
Conditions Nos. 6 and 7 of the contract to prevent
damage and prejudice.
10.Almedas filed an action for ejectment for failure of
Bathala to vacate the premises.

11.Almedas later moved for the dismissal of the

declaratory relief case for being an improper remedy
considering that Bathala was already in breach of
obligation and that the case would not end the
litigation. DENIED.
12.RTC: In favor of Bathala. VAT is not a new tax
contemplated in the 6th clause of the contract. No right
to increase rental, no ordinary inflation.
a. Because of the payment made by Bathalata of
the rental adjustment, the Court ordered the
restitution
of
the
former
amounts,
notwithstanding the rule that in an action for
declaratory relief, affirmative reliefs are not
sought by or awarded to the parties.
13.CA: Affirmed, but the return of the balance of the
rental deposits and VAT and rental adjustment is
deleted. RTC exceeded authority granting affirmative
relief of restituting the excess payment.
ISSUE: Whether the declaratory relief was proper. YES.
RATIO:
Declaratory relief: an action by any person interested in a
deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive
order or resolution, to determine any question of
construction or validity arising from the instrument,
executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a
declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.
Only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the
question of construction or validity of provisions in an
instrument or statute.
Requisites
o Subject matter: Deed, will, contract, other written
instrument, statute, EOs or regulation, ordinance.
o Terms of said documents and validity thereof are
doubtful and require judicial construction.
o There must have been no breach of the documents.
o An actual justiciable controversy
o Issue must be ripe for judicial determination
o Adequate relief is not available through other
means or other forms of action or proceeding.

After Almedas demanded payment of adjusted rentals,

Bathala complied with the terms set forth in the contract
of lease by paying the amounts stipulated therein, even
during pendency of case. There is no showing that
Bathala breached the contract.
A petition for declaratory relief may not be dismissed
despite the filing of an action for rescission, ejectment
and damages where the trial court had not yet resolved
the rescission/ejectment case during the pendency of the
declaratory relief petition.

2 VELARDE v. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY

FACTS:
1. SJS, a registered political party, filed a Petition for
Declaratory Relief before the RTC against Velarde and
others.
2. SJS sought the interpretation of several constitutional
provisions, specifically the separation of church and
state;
and
declaratory
judgment
on
the
constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders
endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or
requiring members of their flock to vote for a specific
candidate.
3. All respondents (head of churches) moved for the
dismissal of the petition.
4. The Trial Court discussed in great lengths the issue on
separation of church and state. It, however, failed to
include a dispositive portion.
5. Thus, Velarde and Soriano filed separate MRs. Denied.
6. Petition for Review with SC.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Decision of the TC was valid. NO.
2. Whether there exists justiceable controversy in the Pet.
for Declaratory Relief. NO.
3. Whether SJS has legal interest in filing the Petition.
NO.
RATIO:
The essential requisites of an action for declaratory relief
are as follows: (1) there is a justiciable controversy; (2)
the controversy is between persons whose interests are
adverse; (3) the party seeking the relief has a legal
interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue is ripe for
judicial determination.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or
controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial
determination, not one that is conjectural or merely
anticipatory.
o SJSs petition fell short of this test.

Failed to allege existing controversy or dispute

between them and the respondents they named.
o Did not state what specific right of SJS was violated
and what acts of those impleaded were in breach of
its rights, law, or Constitution.
o SJS merely speculated that as religious leaders,
they had threatened to endorse a candidate and
that will enable them to elect a person that will
forever be beholden to them, thus, they will be able
to control the government.
No cause of action. The failure to state cause of action is a
ground for dismissal. However, in actions for declaratory
relief, the concept under ordinary civil actions does not
strictly apply.
o Reason for exception: An action for declaratory
relief presupposes that there has been no actual
breach of the instrument involved and the rights
arising thereunder.
o Nevertheless, a breach or violation should be
impending, imminent, or at least threatened.
o The SJS Petition did not disclose explicit allegation
that it had any legal right in its favor that it sought
to protect.
No legal standing. No showing in the Petition that SJS that
as a political party, it would be adversely affected by vote
deprivation due to the acts imputed to the religious
leaders.
The Petition does not even allege any indication or
manifest intent on the part of any of the respondents
below to champion an electoral candidate, or to urge their
so-called flock to vote for, or not to vote for, a particular
candidate. It is a time-honored rule that sheer speculation
does not give rise to an actionable right.
SJS Petition for Declaratory Relief is DISMISSED for failure
to state a cause of action.
o

3 PDIC v. CA and ABAD et. al

FACTS:
1. On a Friday (May 22), the Monetary Board of BSP
issued Resolution 505 prohibiting MBC to do business
in the Philippines and placed its assets and affairs
under receivership.
a. This resolution was received by MBC only in May
26.
2. May 25 (next banking day): Abad went to MBC to preterminate the 71 Golden Time Deposits (P1M+) they
had and re-depositing the fund into 28 new GTDs (of
P40k each) under the Abads.
a. Of the 28 new GTDs, Abad pre-terminated 8 and
withdrew the value (P320k) thereof.
3. Respondents filed their claims with PDIC (statutory
insurer) for the payment of the remaining 20 GTDs.
4. PDIC paid only 3 GTDS, the remaining 17 was withheld
after the Deputy Receiver of MBC sent a report to PDIC
that there was massive conversion and substitution of
trust and deposit accounts in May 25 (a day before the
official announcement and takeover of MBC).
a. That the intention of the parties was to
maximize the availment of PDICs coverage limit
of P40k by spreading out big accounts as to as
many certifcates under various nominees.
5. Because of the report, PDIC filed a petition for
declaratory relief against the Abads for a judicial
declaration determination of the insurability of the
Abads GTDs at MBC.
6. Abad set up a counterclaim asking for the payment of
their insured deposit.
7. RTC: PDIC required to pay the 20 GTDs.
8. CA: Affirmed.
9. PDIC: There should be no order of payment that may
arise from the case because in a petition for
declaratory relief, the only relief that should be
granted is the declaration of the parties rights and
duties.

ISSUE: Whether the order of RTC and CA to pay the GTDs

were proper considering it stemmed from a petition for
declaratory relief which is not an executory process. YES.
RATIO:
Without doubt, a petition for declaratory relief does not
essentially entail an executory process. There is nothing in
its nature, however, that prohibits a counterclaim from
being set-up in the same action.
There is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for
declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a
counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or
contract subject of the complaint.
The same rules governing ordinary civil suits may and do
apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if
they may serve to supplement the provisions of the
peculiar rules governing special civil actions.
CA Decision affirmed.

4 DBM vs Manilas Finest

1. 1975, Integrated National Polica Law was passed
a. 1990- PNP Law was passed
b. 1998- PNP Reorganization Act was passed. And it
provided, among others, that retirees under this act
are given more benefits compared to the INP Law
2. INP retirees filed a petition for declaratory relief
impleading DBM, PNP, NAPOLCOM, CSC, GSIS.
a. They argued that INP and PNP are similarly situated,
but INP was not given the same amount of benefits.
b. It prayed payments or adjustment of the retirement
benefits already granted to them
3. RTC: in favor of INP; CA: affirmed
WON declaratory relief petition could execute a judgment.
YES.
1. General rule: declaratory relief judgments do not entail an
executory process; but such is not absolute.
a. Nothing in the law prohibits the filing of a
counterclaim in the petition for declaratory relief.
b. Also, there was aa prayer before the lower court for
adjustment of the benefits which DBM et al did not
object to.
2. They are also entitled to such because the PNP Law did
not abolish the positions of those in the INP, rather, they
were integrated.

5 Araneta vs Gatmaitan
1. Several fishermen used trawls as a fishing method to
fish in San Miguel Bay between Camarines Norte and
Sur
2. Municipal Mayor prayed to the President to protect
them and the fish resources by banning the operation
of trawls there
3. The president issued EO 22 by prohibiting the trawls
use therein
4. Trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction and/or
declaratory relief with PI with the CFI
a. Sec. of Agriculture and NatRes answered and
said that the only 11 out of the 18 plaintiffs were
licensed to operate fishing boats
b. That the EO was issued in accordance with law
c. That the constitutionality of an EO cannot be
made in a declaratory relied
5. Lower Court held that the Eos prohibiting such are
invalid
WON declaratory relief was proper. YES
1. In a previous case, the court had already ruled on the
issue of the constitutionality of an EO through a petition
for declaratory relief
2. The injunction and PI prayers are correct (there was a
violation of the right of plaintiffs)
3. Also, DENR Secretary and other government officials need
not file a bond because the government is always
presumed to be solvent
4. The Eos are valid. The DENR was given the power by the
Legislature to place restriction on the use of fishing nets
or devices to protect fish fry or fish eggs. And to declare it
unlawful to kill, disturb or drive away fish fry or eggs.
a. It was held that the Eos were made because of the
destruction of shrimps laying their eggs

6 Jumamil vs Caf
1. Jumamil filed with the RTC a pet. For declaratory relief
with prayer for PI and TRO against Mayor Caf and the
Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members questioning the
constitutionality of Municipal Res. No. 7, 1989
a. Such provided for money for construction of
stalls in a public market which was previously
burned down (P1.5M)
2. Mayor Caf already entered into a contract with his
friends and relatives who deposited P40k each. And
then, he leased them solely to them.
3. RTC held that the declaratory relief was improper
because the contract was between the mayor and his
friends. Jumamil has no interest in the contract.
a. CA affirmed
WON declaratory relief was proper. NO, he has no legal
standing.
1. Constitutionality requisites before a court may rule upon
such: justiciable controversy; ripe for adjudication; legal
standing; earliest opportunity
2. Legal standing- person has substantial and persona
interest or that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of
such governmental act. Material interest;
a. Jumamil has no legal standing- this petition was
brought as a taxpayer. A taxpayer need not be a
party to the contract to challenge its validity as
long as he proves sufficient interest in preventing
the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation.
b. He however, failed to assert his interest in the
prevention of illegal expenditure. The fact that he
said he wanted to lease such stall was a mere
afterthought.
c. Court may relax this rule when the issue is of
transcendental
significance
and
paramount
importance to the people.
3. HOWEVER, Jumamil failed to prove that there was
discrimination in selection of the lessees. It must be
clearly established.

7 Santos vs Aquino
1. Santos was a manager of a theater, Cine Concepcion
a. Municipal ordinance no. 61 was adopted and
imposed a license tax to the theater and to ticket
sales
b. It was amended later on and imposed graduated
rates of P200 to P9000 per annum. The department
lowered the amounts, but nonetheless, said tax was
approved.
2. Santos questioned said tax as it amounts to confiscation,
it was oppressive and that it is beyond the power of the
municipality and DOF to impose.
a. He filed petition for declaratory relief

8 MMDA vs Viron
1. PGMA enacted an EO which allows the MMDA to
decongest the traffic in Metro Manila by eliminating
bus terminals along EDSA (as found in the EOs
whereas clauses)
a. Viron and Mencorp, two separate bus companies
filed a petition for declaratory relief and asked
for a construction of the extent of MMDAs
power as provided for in the special law creating
it.
2. TC: unconstitutional; upon MR: reversed
3. MMDA claims that the requisites for a proper petition
for declaratory relief are not present

WON filing of the petition was proper. NO.

WON declaratory relief was proper. YES

1. The terms of the ordinances were not vague or doubtful,

which would require constructin by the courts
2. Also, in a petition for declaratory relief, it must be filed
before a breach or violation
a. In this case, Santos did not pay the taxes imposed.
Thus, he cannot file said petition
3. Santos does not have legal standing
a. He was not the owner of the theater, but only the
manager.
4. The ordinances were valid. There was no proof that such
is excessive, unjust or oppressive

1. Declaratory relief elements:

a. There must be a justiciable controversy
b. The parties must have an adverse interest
c. The person seeking declaratory relief must have
legal interest in the controversy
d. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination
2. There is a justiciable controversy in this case because the
matters raised by Viron etc. are not anticipatory.
a. There is an actual controversy of ripening seeds
that exist between the parties
b. In fact, several resolutions were already issued by
MMDA and an allocation was already made
3. They have substantial interest because it might result to a
closure of their business
4. EO is null and void because it was beyond MMDAs power
and there was no basis for issuing such
a. MMDA has no police power

9 Republic vs Obrecido
1. Obrecido married Lady Villanueva in the Philippines.
Both are Filipino citizens
2. Lady went to the US and was naturalized as an
American citizen
a. She also filed a petition for divorce which was
granted
b. So she married another man, Stephenson
3. Cipriano filed with the court a petition for authority to
remarry
WON
1. The Supreme Court treated such as a petition for
declaratory relief.
2. Declaratory relief elements:
a. There must be a justiciable controversy
b. The parties must have an adverse interest
c. The person seeking declaratory relief must have
legal interest in the controversy
d. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination
3. Any person interested in a will, contract or other written
instrument or rights are affected by statute, EO,
regulation, ordinance or government regulation
a. May ask for construction or validity and a
declaration of his rights and duties
b. It must be filed before breach
4. Also, Obrecido is likewise allowed to remarry.

10 Quisumbing vs Garcia
1. COA conducted an audit of the Province of Cebu and
found that contracts worth P102M
were not made
with
the
authorization
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan as required by R.A. 7160
a. Gov. Garcia filed an MR
2. Pending resolution of the MR, Garcia filed a petition for
declaratory relief alleging the contracts were duly
executed because it complied with the bidding
procedures and was pursuant to the general/
supplemental ordinances of the SP
3. TC: Garcia need not secure an SP authorization
a. Since there was already breach, it would be
treated as an ordinary action
WON pet. For declaratory relief is proper. NO.
1. Petitions for declaratory relief must be filed before breach
or violation of the deed/ written instrument/ statute or
ordinance
a. The purpose of such is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the
parties for their guidance in its enforcement or
compliance and not to settle issues arising from an
alleged breach

11 CJH Development vs BIR

1. Pres. FVR through Proclamation No. 420 created a
special economic zone in Baguio (Camp John Hay)
a. It exempted the businesses therein from
national and local taxes
2. The SC in a previous case held that several portions of
the PNo. 420 were void
3. Thus, BIR and Customs both sent demand letters
claiming payment of taxes retroactively to the time
they were established
4. CJH filed a petition for declaratory relief asking
whether the payment of taxes should retroact to the
SC decision
WON declaratory relief was proper. NO
1. CA NO. 55 provide that petitions for declaratory relief
shall not apply to issues with regard to tax
assessments
a. Said law was not repealed when the Rules of
Court was promulgated
2. CA No. 55 removed from the court jurisdiction over
petitions
for
declaratory
relief
involving
tax
assessments
3. In a petition for declaratory relief, there must be a
written instrument
a. The demand letter cannot be the basis of such
because the real issue is whether the decision of
the SC has a retroactive effect
4. Court decisions are not the proper subjects of petitions
for declaratory relief because there is a remedy
provided for by the Rules of Court, and that is, motion
for clarificatory judgment
5. Also, there are other remedies available, such as
payment under protest

12 Ollada vs Central Bank of the Philippines

1. Ollada is an accountant and was accredited to practice
such in the Central Bank of the Philippines
a. A requirement was then made by CB- that
accountants must submit an accreditation under
oath before they could certify financial
statements of their clients applying for import
dollar allocations
2. Ollada assailed such because it allegedly was an
unlawful invasion of the jurisdiction of the Board of
Accountancy; it unlawfully restrained the legitimate
pursuit of ones trade
a. CB filed a MTD- no cause of action, that the
Monetary Board may make rules and regulations
for
the
effective
discharge
of
their
responsibilities
3. Court dismissed the complaint. That CB may make
rules and regulations that would carry out its purpose.
a. Also, CB has modified the Application for
required to be filled up by the applicants
i. Previously it required the CPAs to comply
with Phil. Institute of Accountants orders,
now, the CPAs need only to comply with
CB regulations and Board of Accountancy
rules
WON declaratory relief was proper. NO
1. The Monetary Board of the Central Bank has authority to
prepare and issue such rules and regulations it may
consider necessary for the effective discharge of the
responsibilities and exercise of the powers assigned to it
2. The objectionable portions of the questioned application
form requirement had already been eliminated, thus, the
declaratory relief petition is already groundless
3. the complaint for declaratory relief will not prosper if filed
after a contract, statute or right has been breached or
violated
a. in this case, Ollada already claims that CB has
violated his rights- right to practice his profession
b. the dismissal thus was correct

c. an action for declaratory relief should be filed

before there has been a breach of a contract,
statutes or right, and that it is sufficient to bar such
action, that there had been a breach which
would constitute actionable violation. The rule is
that an action for Declaratory Relief is proper only if
adequate relief is not available through the means
of other existing forms of action or proceeding

13 Lim vs Republic
1. Lim filed a petition to be permitted to take an oath and
to be repatriated to the Philippines.
a. She alleged she used to be Filipino but lost such
when she married a Chinese citizen
b. That she has all the qualifications to be declared
Filipino
2. LC: granted
WON petition filed by Lim was proper. NO
1. Her petition was made to establish her citizenship prior to
her marriage
a. SC treated it as one for declaratory relief
2. SC said that declaratory relief is inapplicable to political
status of a natural person
a. Citizenship can only be ruled upon by the Courts in
an action where citizenship is a material issue
3. Declaratory relief cannot be used to determine issues
which are moot/ abstract or theoretical or when claims are
uncertain
a. It must be based on a will etc.

14 Dy Poco vs Commissioner of Immigration

1. Dy Poco claims to be a Filipino, alleging his mother was
a Filipina and his father was Chinese
2. He petitioned with the Comm. Of Immigration for
cancellation of his name listed as an alien
a. Because he wrongly thought he was not Filipino
3. Dy Poco filed a petition for declaratory relief
a. CFI dismissed because citizenship is not a
proper proceeding for a declaratory relief

15 Singson vs Republic
1. Singson filed for naturalization
a. LC granted. No one opposed
2. 2 years later, SolGen filed a petition to set the decision
aside
a. That Singson was registered with the Bureau of
Immigration as Chinese
b. LC: declared as void its previous decision
WON decision was void.

WON declaratory relief was proper. NO

1. Dy Poco uses the law which requires him to obtain an
alien certificate
a. It is clear in this case that he is seeking a
declaration of his citizenship
2. Even if it falls under declaratory reliefs scope
a. He still failed to substantiate his claim that his
mother was Filipino
3. Where a declaratory judgment as to a disputed fact would
be determinative of issues other than construction, then a
petition for declaratory relief is not proper

1. The SC held that the decision was premised upon the

evidence presented that he is Filipino and that the Court
believed suhc
a. The Courts may only pass upon the status of a
persons citizenship as incident of the adjudication
of rights
2. SC remanded the case since the genuineness of the
document was raised as an issue
I CANNOT FIND DECLARATORY RELIEF

16 In re: Petition for declaratory relief of Hospicio

Obiles and for cancellation of erroneous registration
as alien. Hospicio Obiles v. Republic of the Philippines

FACTS:
1. Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Albay dismissing
petitioners declaratory relief
2. Petitioner alleges that he is a Filipino citizen by birth
and parentage but because of erroneous belief and
fear of criminal prosecution, he registered himself as
Chinese alien. He never intended to give up his Filipino
citizenship, and that he continued to hold himself out
as a Filipino citizen
3. OSG opposed filed an opposition; no cause of action
and no actual controversy because petitioner is merely
in doubt as to his right. His desire to establish
citizenship should be done in a separate proceeding
4. Court sustained the opposition and dismissed the
petition. Any declaration the court might render will
not terminate the controversy.

ISSUE: Whether or not declaratory relief is the proper

remedy. NO.
RATIO:
To satisfy the requisites of an action for declaratory relief
under Rule 66 RC, the rule is as follows:
o Any person interested under a deed, will, contract
or other written instrument, or whose rights are
affected by a statute ordinance, may bring an
action to determine any question of construction or
validity arising under the instrument or statute and
for his rights or duties thereunder
The instrument which petitioners claim and believe to
have given rise to this cause of action is his registration as
an alien
This instrument is not a contract in which another person
is involved
By such registration petitioner has not become a Chinese
alien, by such declaration alone no rights and obligations
are created, no status fixed or determined

Petitioners fear that said registration might involve the

loss of his Filipino citizenship is not what the law considers
as an actual controversy which requires the intervention
of the courts
Petitioners remedy is clearly not by an action for
declaratory relief, what he desires is to be declared
Filipino citizen

17 GSIS Employees Association (GSISEA) v. Alvenida

FACTS:
1. Action for declaratory relief instituted by GSIS in CFI
joining GSISEA and GSIS Supervisors Union (GSISSU)
2. Petition was filed 11 days after GSISEA declared a
strike, however, prevailed upon to return four days
later
3. Petition seeks a resolution of whether GSIS is
exercising governmental or proprietary functions under
the law, whether employees can compel GSIS into a
CBA, and whether employees can hold a strike
4. Judicial declaration is necessary because of the labor
dispute pending between GSIS and its employees
affiliated with GSISEA and GSISSU
5. GSISEA and GSISSU filed a MD; it does not state a
cause of action, no jurisdiction, and question raised is
unnecessary
6. GSISEA and GSISSU declared another strike because of
some alleged labor practices of GSIS
7. GSIS filed an amended petition for declaratory relief
praying preliminary injunction to enjoin the illegal acts
of GSISEU and GSISSU
8. A complaint for unfair labor practices was filed before
the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), GSIS denied the
charge of unfair labor practice and alleged that it is
exercising governmental functions and that its
employees are prohibited from declaring strikes
9. GSISEA and GSISSU in support of their MD called CFIs
attention that a case was pending before CIR and there
is also another CIR case which had been pending long
before the filing of petition for declaratory relief
10.CFI judge denied the MD and granted the preliminary
injunction prayed for
ISSUE: Whether or not declaratory relief praying preliminary
injunction is STILL a proper remedy. NO.
RATIO:
Declaratory relief was filed to determine whether or
not GSIS is a government agency preforming
governmental functions, a question which has already

been determined by no less than the highest court and

in which case the GSIS itself is a party
If declaratory relief is not necessary where there is
already an action pending in another court involving
the same issue, or where there is another more
effective relief, with more reason should it be
improper, when it appears to be moot and academic
Petition for judicial declaration was sought after the
declaration of strike, a complaint for declaratory relief
will not prosper if filed after a contractor statute, the
construction of which is sought, has already been
breached
Being apparent that the case is a labor dispute arising
from the unfair labor practice case, which is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of CIR, the court below has
clearly no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for
declaratory relief, much less, issue the temporary
restraining order prayed for

18 Dela Llana v Comelec

FACTS:
1. Petitioner filed for a petition for prohibition or
declaratory relief
2. Question was submitted to the people in the December
17, 1977 referendum which reads Do you vote that
President Marcos continue in office as President and be
Prime Minister?"
3. Petitioner argues that such referendum would result to
an amendment
ISSUE: Whether or not petition for prohibition or declaratory
relief be approved. NO.
RATIO:
It is clear that the petition does not pose any question
of sufficient importance or signifance to warrant the
further intention of the court
It is in neither the nature nor the form of an
amendment
Holding of referendum will not result in the indirect
amendment to Amendment No. 3 of the Constitution
which provides that The incumbent interim BP is
organized and ready to discharge its functions and
likewise he shall continue to exercise his powers and
prerogatives under the 1935 Constitution and the
powers vested in the President and Prime Minister
under this Constitution.
PD 1229 which calls for the referendum cannot be said
to suffer infirmity
If people voted yes, Amendment No. 3 will be merely
reaffirmed and reinforced. If the people voted no, the
President will resign. In either case the Constitution, as
it now reads, will remain unaltered
The matter of whether or not holding the referendum
is unnecessary because the people, had already
expressed their assent to the incumbent Presidents
continuance in office. Power to determine when a
referendum should be called resides in the political
branch, normally outside the competence of the courts

Call for referendum is authorized in Amendment No. 7

of the Constitution. If, pursuant to this grant of power,
the President submit himself in a referendum, he
cannot be constitutionally faulted

19 Kawasaki Port Services Co. v. Amores

FACTS:
1. C.F. Sharp (Philippines), filed a complaint for injunction
and/or declaratory relief in CFI against 79 Japanese
corporations. The complaint alleges that he is a
domestic corporation and there is another corporation
named C.F. Sharp (Japan), incorporated in Japan, and
that these two are in all respects separate and distinct
from each other
2. C.F. Sharp (Japan) appears to have incurred obligations
to several creditors, also foreign corporations. C.F.
Sharp (Japan) failed and refused to pay its creditors
due to financial difficulties, with that, the foreign
creditors are now claiming against C.F. Sharp
(Philippines)
3. This is the reason why the declaration of relief was
filed by C.F. Sharp (Philippines)
4. Respondent filed for Extraterritorial Service of
Summons upon Defendants
5. Petitioner Kawasaki Port Services Corporation, et. al.
filed a Special Appearance to Question Jurisdiction of
the Court Over Persons of Defendants; action is in
personam, no property has been attached, and the
action does not fall within any of the four cases
mention in Sec. 17, Rule 14 of RC
6. Respondent Court denied said special appearances,
hence this petition
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents complaint for
injunction and/or declaratory relief is within the purview of
Sec. 17, Rule 14 of RC. NO.
RATIO:
In the instant case, what is sought is a declaration for
C.F. Sharp (Philippines) is separate and distinct from
C.F. Sharp (Japan), not liable for the latter's
indebtedness

It is evident that monetary obligations does not, in

any way, refer to status, rights and obligations.

The prevailing rule is that "where a declaratory

judgment as to a disputed fact would be determinative
of issues rather than a construction of definite stated
rights, status and other relations, commonly expressed
in written instrument, the case is not one for
declaratory judgment."
Thus, considering the nature of a proceeding for
declaratory judgment, wherein relief may be sought
only to declare rights and not to determine or try
issues, there is more valid reason to adhere to the
principle that a declaratory relief proceeding is
unavailable where judgment would have to be made,
only after a judicial investigation of disputed issues
No action in court has as yet ensued, foreign
corporations
merely
demanded
from
private
respondent payment of the monetary obligations
The fact that C.F. Sharp (Philippines) is a separate
entity, is a matter of defense that can be raised by the
respondent at the proper time
With regard to injunction, being a personal action,
personal or substituted service of summons on the
defendants, not extraterritorial service, is necessary to
confer jurisdiction on the court

20 University of the Philippines v. CA

FACTS:
1. In 1986, a conference was held at Diliman. Professor
Bailen of UP presented his studies regarding the
authenticity of the Tasaday (cave-dwelling inhabitants
of Mindanao), he suggested that it was more than a
fabrication made possible by inducing Manobo and
Tboli tribesmen to pose as cave dwellers. Professor
Salazar showed documentary interviews with natives
claiming to have been asked by Elizalde to pose as
Tasadays
2. A year later, UP sent Salazar and Bailen to Yugoslavia
to attend another conference. There, Salazar and
Bailen reiterated their claim
3. With these acts, Elizalde and Tasaday representatives
filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief
against Salazar and Bailen before the RTC
4. That the defendants tend to becloud their right under
Pres. Proc. No. 995, and hence, entitle plaintiff to a
judgment declaring them a distinct community
qualified to receive the benefits of Pres. Proc. No. 995
5. UP filed a motion to intervene since it authorized
Bailen and Salazar regarding such activities
6. Plaintiffs filed MD; failed to state a cause of action,
action has already prescribed, that they are protected
by the guarantees of free speech and academic
freedom, no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, and
no justiciable controversy exists
7. MD was denied by the RTC
8. CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition and
lifting TRO, MD may not be granted on the ground of
insufficiency of the cause of action predicated on
matters not raised in the complaint. RTC, had
jurisdiction over the complaint for damages as the
action was aimed at recovering relief arising from the
wrongful acts of the defendants
ISSUE: Whether or not declaratory should be granted (other
procedural problems were omitted in this digest)
RATIO:

Judgment declaring plaintiff Tasaday to be a distinct

ethnic community within the defined territory under
Pres. Pro. No. 995 is akin to a prayer to judicial
declaration of Philippine citizenship which may not be
granted in a petition for declaratory relief; complaint
was filed mainly to vindicate plaintiffs dignity, and
honor, and to protect them from further vexation

21 Tadeo v. Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan

FACTS:
Appeal from order of CFI, denying Tadeos petition for a
writ of prohibition to enjoin Provisional Fiscal, et.al.
from conducting the preliminary investigation in a
criminal case, at the instance of the spouses Maicong
and Acosta
Appellee spouses sued Tadeo for damages (civil case)
allegedly for preparing a deed of sale of their parcel of
land conveying it to Bongato and fraudulently inducing
them to sign under the belief that it was a partition of
their conjugal property
After instituting such action, the spouses also filed a
complaint for estafa (criminal case) arising from the
same facts
CFI dismissed the civil case, after such, the Justice of
the Peace also dismissed the criminal case for they
only have the same set of facts
Tadeo filed declaratory relief against the spouses
basing the action upon the dismissed civil case;
praying that the deed of quitclaim executed by them
on 27 March 1948 in favor of Bongato be declared "the
genuine document representing the true intention" of
the appellees spouses and that he (the appellant)
relieved from civil and criminal liability arising from the
part he had taken as lawyer and notary public in the
drafting and execution thereof. Also, to enjoin the
spouses from impeaching the genuineness of the
quitclaim
Spouses again filed for estafa (new criminal case)
based on the same facts
Tadeo argues that dismissal of civil case is a bar to the
new criminal case
That the act of the Provincial Fiscal, et.al. conducting
the preliminary investigation for the new criminal case
constitutes GADALEJ
Tadeo prayed to enjoin the appellees from conducting
preliminary investigation in the new criminal case

Appellees argue that the civil case was dismissed

without trial on the merits and criminal case was
dismissed without prejudice
Appellees argue that in the declaratory relief, appellant
is not the real party-in-interest because he was not a
privy to any of the parties in the deed of quitclaim
sought to be construed
RTC denied petition for a writ of prohibition to enjoin
appellees

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is entitled to file an action

for declaratory judgment. NO.
RATIO:
The appellant not being one of the contracting parties
to the deed of sale executed by the appellees spouses
but took part only as notary public before whom they
acknowledged the execution thereof is not entitled to
file an action for declaratory judgment. None of the
rights or duties thereunder need be declared
Another valid and good reason in denying the writ
prayed for is that the appellant has a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In
the appropriate case and at the opportune time, he
may set up all defenses available to him and may
appeal from an adverse judgment

22 Chua U v. Hon. Manuel Lim, et.al

Facts:
1. Petitioners were and are still owners and operators of
the Bijon Factories before the passage of RA 3018
2. In the manufacture of Bijon, petitioners are using rice
and/or corn as the principal ingredient
3. The congress passed a bill regulating the trade of
palay,rice, and corn (RA 3018)
4. That the federation of Chinese Chamber of Commerce
sent a letter to the government requesting information
as to whetehr the manufacturers of Bijon are within the
scope of the RA
5. Respondents ruled that they are included
6. Petitioners, in a declaratory judgment, prayed to annul
Resolution No. 10 which declared that Bijon industry is
included in RA 3018
7. Petitioners and respondents submit for determination
whether RA 3018 is applicable to the Bijon industry
8. Lower court found for the petitioners, RA 3018 did not
include bijon manufactures because the latter did
not deal in rice or corn or any of its by-products
9. OSG appealed directly to the SC
ISSUE: Whether or not declaratory relief should be granted.
NO
RATIO:
Declaratory judgment should have been dismissed
From the time the Board issued a ruling that
petitioners were covered, the way was open for
petitioners to appeal the boards ruling to its
administrative superiors, and thereafter institute an
ordinary judicial action to contest the Boards ruling
and prohibit such enforcement
Remedy of declaratory relief is proper only if adequate
relief is not available through other existing forms of
action proceeding
Courts will not assume declaratory judgement
proceedings until administrative remedies have been
exhausted

Declaratory relief sought would also affect other

manufacturers which were not represented in these
proceedings
Declaratory relief must be brought before any breach
of the statute or ordinance sought to be tested
Even if such relief were to be proper, facts stipulated
are insufficient to warrant a verdict in this case

23 Adlawan v. IAC
FACTS:
1. Petition to declare null and void the decision of CFI for
declaratory relief with injunction and resolution of IAC
dismissing the appeal
2. Prior the advent of martial law, there were two
cockpits operating under license owned and operated
by the respondents
3. With the promulgation of PD 449, which provided for
one cockpit for every municipality, the present
controversy arose
4. The question arose as to which cockpit shall remain to
operate, Final determination was held in abeyance with
the municipal council, instead it was referred to the
Constabulary which had jurisdiction
5. Provincial command upholding the Coliseum of the
private respondents as the municipal cockpit
6. The operator of the barrio cockpit appealed the
decision to the Zone Commander who referred the
matter back to the municipal council
7. Municipal council submitted a report recommending
the retention of the barrio cockpit
8. Under RA 1224, municipal board has the power to
determine the distance limit of cockpits from certain
public structures
9. The committee concluded that the Coliseum failed to
meet the required distance limit, hence, Municipal
cockpit should be maintained as the cockpit
10.Respondents argue that such law regarding distance
only took effect after they were awarded license, and
according to the law, such distance requirement
should have no retroactive effect
11.Resolution 40 was passed to make and issue a
certification that the municipal cockpit is the Bagong
Bulangan Cockpit
12.Private respondents Enad and Larumbe filed an action
for declaratory relief with injunction
13.CFI- in favor of the respondents
14.Diores appealed with the IAC, Diores sold the
municipal cockpit to Adlawan pending the appeal

15.Diores filed a motion to withdraw appeal and such was

granted
16.Adlawan filed a motion for reconsideration alleging
that Diores was no longer the owner
17.TC ordered writ of execution for the enforcement of its
decision by reason of the dismissal of the appeal
18.Meanwhile, the Philippine Gamefowl Commission
passed a resolution ordering the cancellation of the
certificate of the municipal cockpit and approving the
registration of the Coliseum
19.IAC denied petitioners MR, entry of judgment having
been made, hence, this appeal
ISSUE: Whether or not decision of IAC is illegal for violation
of the existing laws. NO
RATIO:
It is clear that it is discretionary upon the municipal
council to fix the location of cockpits from public
buildings. RA 1224 however, prohibits retroactive
application to cockpits already existing at the time of
enactment, specifically with respect to distances
Since Coliseum was established in 1955 whereas the
ordinance was passed only in 1969, the provision
cannot prejudice the existence of the Coliseum
With regard to the declaratory relief, the action
was initiated for a declaration of the rights and
obligations of parties under the laws and ordinances
involved
In such special civil action, the judgment does not
entail an executory process since other than a
declaration of such rights and duties, other affirmative
reliefs, as these are understood in ordinary civil
actions, are not sought by the proponent
However, the Court has held that although the action
is for a declaratory judgment but the allegations in the
complaints are sufficient to make out a case for
specific performance or recovery of property with
claims for damages, and the defendants did not raise
an issue in the trial court to challenge the remedy or

form of the action availed of, the court can grant such
affirmative relief as may be warranted by the evidence

24 Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy

FACTS:
1. Action for declaratory relief filed by plaintiff with CFI for
testing the constitutionality of section 16-A of
Commonwealth
Act
(CA)
3105
a.k.a
Philippine
Accountancy Law, as amended by CA 342. That it is a
class legislation since it excludes persons engaged in
professions from adopting, acquiring or using a trade
name in connection with the practice of such professions
(Bakit daw accountants lang ang may karapatan
gumamit ng trade name)
2. Action was addressed against the Board of Accountancy,
the court dismissed the complaint holding that it is not
against the constitution, plaintiff appealed
3. Plaintiff is a Filipino Citizen and a CPA, the defendants
Ferguson and Hausamann are practicing their
profession under the trade name Fleming and
Williamson
a. The right to use the trade name was bought and
was acquired by the defendants
4. Defendants argue that plaintiff has no rights affected by
the said law and that he is entitled to use a trade or
name in the practice of his profession
5. Case was submitted for decision
ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff has sufficient cause of action,
and whether or not the CA is constitutional
RATIO:
Plaintiffs main objection centers on the exclusive character
of the law which extends benefits only to those engaged in
the profession of accountancy
He claims declaratory relief not on his own benefit but for
the benefit of the other professions, who are not parties in
this case
This case, therefore, has no justiciable controversy
Requisites for declaratory relief:
o Justiciable controversy
Real parties in interest
Asserting adverse claims
Presenting a ripe issue
o Between persons whose interest are adverse

Person seeking relief must have legal interest in the

controversy
o Issue must be ripe for judicial determination
CA is not unconstitutional
o

25 Commissioner of Customs, et.al. v. Cloribel

FACTS:
1. There was a pending civil case before the respondent
court entiled Ofilada v Reparations Commission, a
special civil action for declaratory relief, wherein
Ofilada, as the receiver of the World War II Veterans
Enterprises (Warvets), likewise pending in another CFI
branch, sought judicial declaration under the allocation
granted to said Warvets and the conversion rates of
the dollar peso of the purchase price
2. The case regarding judicial declaration was a minority
suit filed by stockholders of Warvets alleging
irregularities in the management, hence, need for
receivers, of which there are two, Saura and Ofilada
3. In the judicial declaration, the court ordered Ofilada to
deliver to Cochingyans shipment of goods under
Warvets allocation. It appears however that a MR was
filed regarding the judicial declaration
4. The court held in abeyance the allocation until the
court knows the result of the pending settlement
5. A verified third party complaint for mandamus against
Customs was filed
a. A shipment was procured by the reparations
commission to cover allocation granted by the
Commission to Warvets
b. Ofilada, to release the goods to Cochingyan,
paid to the Commission
c. After receiving the payment, the commission
instead of releasing the goods, requested
Customs to verify the value of the goods
d. Customs cannot release the goods until the
proper taxes have been made
6. The court allowed the third party complaint and issued
injunction
7. Motion to lift injunction was filed
8. Court denied motion to lift
9. The goods are still unreleased to the Cochingyans
when petition for certiorari and prohibition at bar was
filed

ISSUE: Whether or not to annul orders of the respondent

court which permitted private respondents to file third party
complaint in a special civil action; action for declaratory relief
in which Conchingyans were defendants and which was
already tried and almost ready for decision
RATIO:
The only purpose of the declaratory relief was to
secure from the court the proper interpretation of
reparations contract between reparations commission
and Warvets regarding the rate of conversion of the
dollar to the peso of the purchase price. No positive or
affirmative, much less, material relief was sought
therein
Declaratory relief, is confined to a case of actual
controversy, in other words, Ofilada did not, as he
could not pray for anything to be award or granted to
him
Court should not have allowed the third party
complaint

26 The Visayan Packing Corporation

Reparations Commission (REPACOM)

(VISPAC)

v.

FACTS:
1. Contract and purchase of sale was entered between
petitioner and respondent, to be paid in 10 equal
yearly installments by VISPAC
2. Prior to the due date of the 1st installment, REPACOM
sent VISPAC a written reminder
3. VISPACs response was to file in CFI 2 special civil
actions for declaratory relief, alleging ambiguity for
there is a failure to state the precise time when to pay
4. VISPAC, despite demands, failed to pay on the alleged
due date
5. REPACOM instituted civil case for collection of money
6. VISPAC moved to dismiss collection suit due to the
pending declaratory relief actions, arguing that unless
the latter were resolved, there is no cause of action
7. MD was denied
8. CFI order VISPAC to pay REPACOM
9. VISPAC appealed to the CA, but bought declaratory
reliefs had been dismissed by CFI (SC affirmed the
dismissal of the relief suits)
10.CA affirmed CFI
ISSUE: Whether or not it was error on the Appellate Court's
part to have affirmed the Trial Court's decision for the
collection of the first installment of the price due from it
under its contract with REPACOM, because that money claim
should have been set up as a compulsory counterclaim in the
declaratory relief action
RATIO:
there is nothing in the nature of a special civil action
for declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a
counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or
contract subject of the complaint. A special civil action
is after an not essentially different from all ordinary
civil action, which is generally governed by Rules 1 to
56 of the Rules of Court, except that the former deals
with a special subject matter which makes necessary
some special regulation. But the Identity between their

fundamental nature is such that the same rules

governing ordinary civil suits may and do apply to
special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they
may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar
rules governing special civil actions.
The separate action for collection should have been
dismissed and set up as a compulsory counterclaim in
the declaratory relief suits, by way of an amended
answer. This was not done
However, final verdict dismissing declaratory relief
suits were decided on the merits, it would be to do
injustice of we are to declare the proceedings fatally
defective.

27
IN THE
MATTER OF THE
PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY
OF ORDINANCE NO. 386 OF THE CITY OF BAGUIO,
BAGUIO CITIZENS ACTION INC., and JUNIOR CHAMBER
OF BAGUIO CITY, INC
FACTS:
1. Petition for declaratory relief was filed with the CFI,
declaring the Ordinance (All squatters of Public Land
other than those for public use in the city are
considered as bonafide occupants of their respective
lots) as invalid and void ab intio
2. The respondent filed MD, it was denied
3. Petition was dismissed
a. Another CFI has declared the ordinance as valid
b. Those who come within the protection of the
ordinance have not been made parties to the
suit (non-joinder of parties)
c. Declaration is not necessary and proper at the
time under all circumstances
ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance is valid. NO.
RATIO:
There is nothing in Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court which says that the non-joinder of persons who
have or claim any interest which would be affected by
the declaration is a jurisdictional defect
It must be noted that the reason for the law requiring
the joinder of all necessary parties is that failure to do
so would deprive the declaration of the final and
pacifying function the action for declaratory relief is
calculated to subserve, as they would not be bound by
the declaration and may raise the Identical issue
In the case at bar, although it is true that any
declaration by the court would affect the squatters, the
latter are not necessary parties because the question
involved is the power of the Municipal Council to enact
the Ordinances in question. Whether or not they are
impleaded, any determination of the controversy
would be binding upon the squatters
A declaration on the nullity of the ordinance, would
give the squatters no right which they are entitled to

protect. The party most interested to sustain and

defend the legality of the Ordinance is the body that
passed it, the City Council, and together with the City
Mayor, is already a party in these proceedings
The Ordinance is nullified without force and effect

28 City of Lapu-Lapu v PEZA

FACTS:
1. Marcos issued P.D. 66 in 1972, declaring the
establishment of PEZA, Export Processing Zone
Authority (EPZA) was created to carry out this policy
2. EPZA was declared exempt from all taxes
3. Certain parcels of land of public domain located in
Lapu-Lapu Cebu were reserved to serve as site of the
Mactan Export Processing Zone
4. In 1995, Ramos directed PEZA to assume and exercise
all EPZAs power, all the properties of EPZA were
transferred to PEZA
5. First Case (DITO LANG YUNG FOCUS)
a. Lapu-Lapu demanded from PEZA real property
tax
i. No provision in the Special Economic
Zone Act (SEZA) of 1995 exempted PEZA
unlike P.D. 66 that explicitly provided for
EPZAs exemption
ii. 88M from years 1992 to 2002
b. PEZA filed declaratory relief with RTC
c. RTC Pasay PEZA remained tax exempt, Sec 24
of SEZA 1995 applies only to private developers
d. CA- Dismissed; pure questions of law, should
have been directed to CA via petition for review
on certiorari
e. City insists that RTC Pasay should have
jurisdiction because property was located in
Lapu-Lapu
6. Second case
a.
Petition for injunction before RTC Pasay;
suspend collection
b. RTC denied petition for injunction; not exempt.
Local government code had withdrawn such
privilege
c. CA- set aside RTC decision, PEZA is exempted
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC Pasay had jurisdiction to hear the
case, and decide the City of Lapu-Lapus petition for
declaratory relief. NO.

RATIO:
We rule that the PEZA erred in availing itself of a
petition for declaratory relief against the City. The City
had already issued demand letters and real property
tax assessment against the PEZA
The Special Economic Zone Act of 1995, the subject
matter of PEZAs petition for declaratory relief, had
already been breached
The trial court, therefore, had no jurisdiction over the
petition for declaratory relief. Any decision rendered by
a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action is void
Once an assessment has already been issued by the
assessor, the proper remedy of a taxpayer depends on
whether the assessment was erroneous or illegal.
In case of an erroneous assessment, the taxpayer
must exhaust the administrative remedies provided

under the Local Government Code before resorting to

judicial action
In the present case, the PEZA did not avail itself of any
of the remedies against a notice of assessment
A petition for declaratory relief is not the proper
remedy once a notice of assessment was already
issued
Instead of a petition for declaratory relief, the PEZA
should have directly resorted to a judicial action
The PEZA should have filed a complaint for injunction,
the "appropriate ordinary civil action"166 to enjoin the
City from enforcing its demand and collecting the
assessed taxes from the PEZA. After all, a declaratory
judgment as to the PEZAs tax-exempt status is
useless unless the City is enjoined from enforcing its
demand.