SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION

BY:
HON. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS
PROFESSOR, ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL
PROFESSOR, UP LAW SCHOOL
PROFESSOR, PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY
 Special Civil Actions

Rule 62 Interpleader
Rule 63 Declaratory Reliefs and Similar Remedies
Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
Resolution of the COMELEC and COA
Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Rule 66 Quo Warranto
Rule 67 Expropriation
Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Rule 69 Partition
Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Rule 71 - Contempt
 Nature of Special Civil Actions

Being a civil action, a special civil action is one by which a

party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. (Section 3
(a), Rule 1 of the Rules of Court.

Both are governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions.

However, the fact that an actionb is subject to special rules
other than those applicable to ordinary civil actions is what
gives a civil action its special character.

As a general rule, however, the rules governing ordinary

civil actions shall apply in special civil actions insofar as
they supplement or are not inconsistent with the provisions
governing the latter actions.
 Rule 62
Interpleader

An interpleader complaint may be filed by a lessee against

those who have conflicting claims over the rent due for the
property leased. This remedy is for the lessee to protect
him or her from double vexation in respect of one liability.
He or she may file the interpleader case to extinguish his or
her obligation to pay rent, remove him or her from the
adverse claimants dispute, and compel the parties with
conflicting case to litigate among themselves. (Lui
Enterprises v. Zuellig Pharma, G.R. No. 193493, 12 March
2014)
 Rule 63
Declaratory Relief and Similar Reliefs

What are the requisites of an action for declaratory relief?

1. There must be a justiciable controversy;
2.The controversy must be between persons whose interests
are adverse;
3. The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal
interest in the controversy; and
4.The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.
(CJH Development v. BIR, G.R. No. 172457, 24 December
2008)
An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has
been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of the
rights arising thereunder. It may be entertained before the
breach or violation of the statute, deed or contract to which
it refers. It is a form of action that will set controversies at
rest before they lead to a repudiation of obligations, an
invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs. (Aquino v.
Municipality of Malay, Aklan, G.R. No. 211356, 29
September 2014)
 Instances when the action for declaratory relief will not lie:

1. Action to obtain a judicial declaration of citizenship because

there is no controversy and other remedies are available. (Lim
v. Republic, G.R. No. L-30424, 1971);

2. Action to establish illegitimate filiation and actions to

determine hereditary rights because there is no actual existing
legal right as hereditary rights are inchoate since the parent in
question is still alive. (Edades v. Edades, G.R. No. L-8964,
1956);

3. Court decisions;

4. Decisions of quasi-judicial agencies;

5. Action to resolve political question;

6.Those determinative of the issues rather than the construction

of definite status, right or relation;

7. Where the terms of the assailed ordinance are not ambiguous

or of doubtful meaning;

8. Where the contract or statute subject of the case had already

been breached (SJS v. Lina, G.R. No. 160031, 18 December 2008)

9. When the purpose of the action is merely to seek an advisory

opinion from the court on a moot question.
If before the final determination of the case, a breach or
violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other government regulation
should take place, the action may thereupon be
CONVERTED into an ordinary action, and the parties shall
be aloowed to fike such pleading as may be necessary or
proper. (Section 6, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court)
Proceedings considered as similar remedies:

1. Reformation of an Instrument An action for reformation

is not an action brought to reform a contract but to reform
the instrument evidencing the contract. (Article 1359 of the
New Civil Code)

2. Consolidation of Ownership 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. (Cruz v. Leis,
G.R. No. 125233, 9 March 2000)
3. Quieting of Title to real Property- An action to quiet title to
real property is for the removal or prevention of a cloud of
title to real property or any interest by reason of any
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which
is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact
invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable and may be
prejudicial to said title. (Article 476 of the New Civil Code)
 Rule 64
Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA

The Rule shall govern the review of judgments and final

orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections en banc
and the Commission on Audit. (Section 1, Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court)

A letter and notice that are mere issuances issued by the

COMELEC are not subject to review by the Supreme Court, as
the power of the Court to review the decisions of the
COMELEC is limited only to final decisions, rulings and
orders of the COMELEC an banc rendered in the exercise of
its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power. (Diocese of
Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, 5 July 2016)

The prerequisite filing of a Motion for Reconsideration

with the COMELEC en banc is mandatory before said
final an banc decision may be brought to the Supreme
Court on Certiorari. (Ambil v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
143398, 25 October 2000)
 Rule 65
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

The heirarchy of courts shoud serve as a general determinant

of the appropriate furm for Ryle 54 petitions. The
concurrence of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, and the Regional trial Courts to issue writs of
certiorar, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and imjunction does not give the petitioners the
unrestricted free of choice of forum. (Kalipunan ng
Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, 22
July 2014)
As a general rule, a petition for CERTIORARI is proper when
all the requisites are complied with.

It is the inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal

remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ,
that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari. A
remedy is plain, speedyd, and adequate if it will promptly
relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the
judgment, order, or resolution of the lower court or agency.
(Aquino v. Malay, Aklan, G.R. No. 211356, 29 September 2014)
Certiorari is the proper remedy to appeal a declaration of
presumptive death.

The Family Code was explicit that the court's judgment in

summary proceedings, such as the declaration of
presumptive death of an absent spouse, shall be immediately
final and executory/ An aggrieved pay may, nevertheless, file
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question any abuise
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that
transpired. (Republic v. Cantor, G.R. No. 184621, 10 December
2013)
Certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to
contest the validity of acts of any branch or agency of
government as provided for under Section 1, Article VIII of
the Constitution.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts to determine

whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amouting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Ermita v.
Aldecoa-Delorin, 651 SCRA 128)
As a general rule, a petition for PROHIBITION is intended to
prohibit or prevent future acts done without authority or
jurisdiction and is not proper for acts already accomplished.

Even when an act is already fait accompli, SC has allowed a

writ of prohibition:

1. Where it would provide a complete relief by not only

preventing what remains to be done but undoing what has
been done such as terminating a preliminary investigation
instead of filing a motion to quash. (Aurillo v. Rabi, G.R. No.
120014, 26 November 2002)
2. Where it would prevent the creation of a new province by
those in the corridors of power who could avoid judicial
intervention and review by merely speedily and stealthily
completing the commission of of such illegality. (Tan v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-73155, 11 July 1986)

3. Where the cats sought to be enjoined were performed after

the injunction suit is brought. (Versoza v. Martinez, G.R. No.
119511-13, 24 November 1998)
A petition for MANDAMUS is considered proper in the
following cases:

1. To compel the Ombudsman to dismiss a case which was

pending before it for 6 years, which was considered a
violation of the constitutional duty to promptly act on
complaints filed before it. (Angchangco v. Ombudsman,G.R.
No. 122728, February 13, 1997)

2. To compel a judge to issue a writ of execution pending

appeal of a decision in an ejectment case where defendant
appellant failed to make the necessary deposits of rentals
pending appeal. (Vda. De Carbungco v. Amparo, 83 Phil 638)
MANDAMUS not proper in the following cases:

1. To enforce purely contractual obligations;

2. When there is another speedy remedy and adequate

remedy;

3. To compel a school to readmit students ans/or ro confer

academic honors, in violation of the school academic
freedom. (University of San Agustin v. CA, G.R. No. 100588 7
March 19940
Sanction for filing a patently unmeritorious or frivolous
petition:

The Court may award treble costs in favor of the respondent

solidarily against the petitioner and counsel. It may also
subject the counsel to administrative actions under Rules 139
and 139-B of the Rules of Court.

The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa

loquitor, other than disciplinary sanctions or measures on
erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious
petitions for certiorari. (Section 8, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, 12 December
2007)
 Rule 66
Quo Warranto

The purpose of Quo Warranto proceedings is to:

1. Determine the right of a person to use or exercise of a

franchise or office;

2. Oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-
founded, or if he has forfeited his right to emjoy the office.
(Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004)
Nature of a quo warranto proceeding:

1. It is a direct, not a collateral attack, on the matter assailed;

2. It is a proceedings against a public officer, not in his official

capacity because no official power or right or duty is sought
but vecause the officer's title to the office is being questioned.

3. It is a proceeding of a public nature filed by a prosecuting

attorney ex officio such as the Solicitor General or fiscal.

Rule 66 of the Rules of Court does not apply to quo warranto

cases against persons who usurp an office in a private
corporation. (Calleja v. Panday, G.R. No. 168696, 28 February
2006)
A petition to cease and desist the release of illegal
advertisements by a Legal Clinic run mainly by paralegals
must properly be brought to the Solicitor General to
commnece an action of quo warranto against the company in
light of their misuse of the corporate charter. When the
advertisements released by the company seem to celebrate
bigamy, illegal marriages or divorce, the same must be
enjoined immediately by the court. (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic,
Bar Matter No. 553, 17 June 1993)
 Rule 67
Expropriation

Expropriation is a process by which the power of eminet

domain is carried out, taking as of private owned property by
government under eminent domain. Eminet domain is the
right of the State to acquire private property for public use
upon the payment of just compensation.

Two stages in every action for expropriation:

Stage 1: Determination of the plaintiff's authority to exercise

the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise
in the context of the facts involved in the suit. It
ends with an order, if not dismissal of the action, of
condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right
to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public
use or purpose described in the complaint, upon payment of
just compensation to be determined as of the date of the
filing of the complaint. An order of dismissal, if this be
ordained, would be a final one, of course, since since it finally
disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by
the court on the merits.

Remedy: Appeal by notice of appeal and record on appeal

within 30 days from receipt of court order.
Stage 2: Determination by the court of the just compensation
for the property sought to be taken. This is done by the court
with the assistance of not more than three (3)
commissioners. The order fixing the just compensation on
the basis of the evidence before, and findings of, the
commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of
the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be
done by the court regarding the issue. (Barangay San Roque,
Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Pastor, G.R. No. 138896, 20 June
2000)
Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited
to the following areas of concern: (a) the adequacy of the
compensation; (b) the necessity of the taking, and (c) the
public use character of the purpose of the taking. Dismissal
of an expropriation proceeding is proper when the city
asserting eminet domain failed to prove in evidence that
there is a genuine necessity for taking public property.
Providing a playground for a non-profit, private organization,
not directly for the benefit of the localitym is not public
purposse. Hence, it is an inappropriate reason for instituting
expropriation proceedings and no confiscation of property
may be executed. (Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, 23
January 2006)
Just compensation means not only the correct determination
of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the
payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking.
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered just for the property owner is made to sufffer the
consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while
being made to wait for a decade or more before actually
receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.
(Coscoluela v. CA, G.R. No. L-77765, 15 August 1988)

An action for reconveyance or recovery of possession, if

payment of just compensation has not been made after the
lapse of five (5) years from finality of the judgment fixing just
compensation, udner special circumstances, including the
fact that the property taken is no longer devoted to public
use. (Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, 29 June 2005)
 Rule 68
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

Foreclosure is a procedure by which the holder of a

mortgage- an interest in land providing security for the
performance of a duty or the payment of a debt sells the
proerty upon the failure of the debtor to pay the mortagge
debt and, thereby terminates his or her rights in the property.

Modes of foreclosure in REM:

1. Judicial foreclosure pursuant to Rule 68;
2.Extrajudicial foreclosure pursuant to Act No. 3135, as
amended.
The availment of the remedy under Rule 68 bars recourse to
the subsequent filing of a personal action for collection of the
same debt, in this case, under the principle of litis pendentia,
considering that the foreclosure case only remains pending as
it was not shown to have attained finality. (Marilag v.
Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, 22 July 2015)
 Rule 69
Partition
It is the separation, division and assignment of property held
in common among co-owners in proportion to their
respective interests in the said property.

Complaint for partition must contain the nature and extent

of petitioner's title, adequate description of the real estate of
which partition is demanded and a demand for the
accounting of the rents, profits and other income from the
property which he may be entitled to.
Proof of legal acknowledgment as an heir is not a prerequisite
before an action for partition may be filed. Am action for
partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership
and for segregation and conveyance of a determined portion
of the properties involved. If the defendant asseerts exclusive
title over the property, the action for partition should not be
dismissed. Rather, the copurt should resolve the case and if
the plaintiff is unable to sustain his claimed status as a co-
owner, the court should dismiss the action, but because no
vasis exists for requiring the defendant to submit to partition.
If, on the other hand, the court after trial should find the
existence of co-ownership among the parties, the court may
abd should order the partition of the properties in the same
action. (Balo v. CA, G.R. No. 129704, 30 September 2005)
There can be res judicata in partition cases concerning the
same parties and the sa,e subject matter once the respective
shares of the co-owners have been determined with finality
by a competent court with jurisdiction or if the court
determines that partition is improepr for co-owners does not
ot no longer exists. (Quintos v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 210252, 25
June 2014)
 Rule 70
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

There is forcible entry when one is deprived of physical

possession of real property by means of force, intimidation,
strategy, threats or stealth.

On the other hand, unlawful detainer exists when one is

illegall withholds possession after the expiration or
termination of his right to hold possession under any
contract, express or implied.
In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such
statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class
of cases for which Section 1 of Rule 70 provides a sumary
remedy, and must show enough on its face to give the court
jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence. Such remedy is
either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. (Zacarias v. Anacay,
G.R. No. 202354, 24 September 2014)

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. (Mario, Jr. v. Gamilla, G.R. No. 132400, 31
January 2005)
The failure to allege the TIME when unlawful deprivation
took place is fatal because this will determine the start of the
counting of the one (1) year period for the filing of the
summary action. Thus, the importance of making a demand
cannot be overemphasized, as it is jurisdictional in nature.
(Mirallosam, et al., v. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No.
194538, 02693, 27 November 2013)
Demand upon a tenant may be oral but sufficient evidemce
must be adduced to show that there was indeed a demand
like testimonies from disinterested and unbiased witnesses.
(Jakihaca v. Aquino, G.R. No. 83982, 12 January 1990)

If several demands were made, the one year period is counted

from the last demand letter received, unless subsequent
demands were merely in the nature of reminders of the
original demand, in which case the one-year period is
counted from the first demand.
In unlawful detainer, the defendant's possession is initially
lawful because the plaintiff consented to his entry. His
possession subsequently becomes unlawful because of the
termination of his right to possess the property because of
the expiration of a contract or the withdrawal of the plaintiffs
consent. Subsequent tolerance will not convert an action
from forcible entry into unlawful detainer. The plaintiff must
sufficiently establish the character of the defendant's entry
into the property through competent evidence. (Sabellina v.
Buray, G.R. No. 187727, 2 September 2015)
 Rule 71
Contempt

Contempt is disobedience and utter disregard to the court by

acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It
also includes conduct which tends to bring the authority of
the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in a
manner which impedes the due administration of justice. (Siy
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158971, 25 August 2005)
The power of contempt is inherent in all courts in order to
allow them to conduct their business unhampered by
publications and comments which tend to impair the
impartiality of their decisions or otherwise obstruct the
administration of justice. (P/Supt. Marantan v. Atty. Diokno,
et al., G.R. No. 205956, 12 February 2014)

Acts constituting direct contempt are:

a) Misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before it;
b) Disrespect oward the court;
c) Offensive personalities towards others;
d) Refusal to be sworn as a witness or to answer as a witness;
e) Refusal to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when
lawfully required to do so;
f) Acts of party or a counsel which constitute willful and
deliberate forum shopping; and
g) unfounded accusations or allegations or words in a
pleading tending to embarrass the court or to bring it into
dispute.

Acts constituting indirect contempt are:

a) Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance

of his official duties or in his official transactions.
b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, procees,
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 Rule 71;
d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and
acting as such without authority;
f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and
d) 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.
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 concerend until
he performs it.

The punishment is imposed for the benefit of a complainant

or a party to a suit who has been injurde 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.
Rule 71 applies suppletorily to contempt committed against
persons exercising quasi-judicial function.

Quasi-judicial bodies that have the power to cite persons for

indirect contempt can only do so by initiating them in the
proper RTC. It is not within their jurisdiction and
competence to decide the indirect contempt cases. The RTC
of the place where contempt has been committed shall have
jurisdiction over the charges for indirect contempt that may
be filed. (Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court)