DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND OTHER SIMILAR REMEDIES
DECLARATORY RELIEF & SIMILAR REMEDIES (Rule 63)
Any person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other
written instrument,
or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation
(Sec. 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court),
or those who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by the declaration (Sec. 2, Rule 63, Rules of Court) may
avail of this special civil action.
An action for declaratory relief is brought to secure an
authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the
parties under a contract or a statute for their guidance in
the enforcement or compliance with the same (Meralco vs.
Philippine Consumers Foundation, 374 SCRA 262). Thus, the
purpose is to seek for a judicial interpretation of an
instrument or for a judicial declaration of a person’s rights
under a statute and not to ask for affirmative reliefs like
injunction, damages or any other relief beyond the purpose of the
petition as declared under the Rules.
The subject matter in a petition for declaratory relief is
any of the following:
(a) Deed;
(b) Will;
(c) Contract or other written instrument;
(d) Statute;
(e) Executive order or regulation;
(f) Ordinance; or
(g) Any other governmental regulation (Sec. 1).
The petition for declaratory relief is filed before there
occurs any breach or violation of the deed, contract, statute,
ordinance or executive order or regulation. It will not prosper when
brought after a contract or a statute has already been breached or
violated. If there has already been a breach, the appropriate
ordinary civil action and not declaratory relief should be filed.
EXCEPTION:
Declaratory relief may still be availed even if there is breach or
violation IF:
1. It concerns future application of the instrument or law (Gomez
vs. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827) or
2. Not objected to by the adverse party and the court has rendered
judgment after full blown trial (Matalin Coconut Producers,143
SCRA 1)
WHO MAY FILE THE ACTION
(1) Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance or other governmental regulation may before breach
or violation thereof, bring an action in the RTC to determine any question of
construction or validity arising and for a declaration of his rights or duties,
thereunder (Sec. 1).
(2) Those who may sue under the contract should be those with interest under
the contract like the parties, the assignees and the heirs as required by substantive
law(Art. 1311, Civil Code).
(3) If it be a statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance, the petitioner is
one whose rights are affected by the same (Sec. 1, Rule 63). The other parties are
all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the
declaration. The rights of person not made parties to the action do not stand to be
prejudiced by the declaration (Sec. 2).
Jurisprudence has laid down the following as requisites for the petition:
a) The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
(b) The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
(c) There must have been no breach of the documents in question;
(d) There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons
whose interests are adverse;
(e) The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
(f) Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding (City of
Lapu-Lapu vs. Philippine Economic Zone Authority, G.R. No. 184203, November 26, 2014).
WHEN COURT MAY REFUSE TO MAKE JUDICIAL DECLARATION
(1) Grounds for the court to refuse to exercise declaratory relief;
(a) A decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave
rise to the action; or
(b) The declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the
circumstances as when the instrument or the statute has already been
breached (Sec. 5).
(4) In declaratory relief, the court is given the discretion to act or not to
act on the petition. It may therefore choose not to construe the instrument
sought to be construed or could refrain from declaring the rights of the petitioner
under the deed or the law. A refusal of the court to declare rights or
construe an instrument is actually the functional equivalent of the
dismissal of the petition.
EXCEPTION:
The court does not have the discretion to refuse to act with respect to actions
described as similar remedies. Thus, in an action for reformation of an
instrument, to quiet or to consolidate ownership, the court cannot refuse
to render a judgment (Sec. 5).
A quasi-judicial action of the Ombudsman to implement the suspension order is beyond
the subject matter of declaratory relief. Court orders are not included within the
purview of the words "other written instrument." The same principle applies to orders,
resolutions, or decisions of quasijudicial bodies.
The fundamental rationale for this is the principle of res judicata. Parties are not
permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. Judgment rendered by a court or a
quasi-judicial body is conclusive on the parties subject only to appellate authority. The
losing party cannot modify or escape the effects of judgment under the guise of an
action for declaratory relief
Another reason why judicial or quasijudicial orders or decisions cannot be the subject
matter of declaratory relief is the doctrine of judicial stability or noninterference. Courts
and tribunals with the same or equal authority - even those exercising concurrent and
coordinate jurisdiction are not permitted to interfere with each other's respective cases,
much less their orders or judgments (DILG v. Gatuz, G.R. No. 191176, October 14, 2015).
CONVERSION TO ORDINARY ACTION
(1) If before final termination of the case, a breach
should take place, the action may be converted into
ordinary action to avoid multiplicity of suits (Republic vs.
Orbecido, G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005).
(2) Ordinary civil action – plaintiff alleges that his right
has been violated by the defendant; judgment rendered is
coercive in character; a writ of execution may be executed
against the defeated party.
(3) Special civil action of declaratory relief – an
impending violation is sufficient to file a declaratory relief;
no execution may be issued; the court merely makes a
declaration.
PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERED AS SIMILAR REMEDIES
(1) Similar remedies are:
(a) Action for reformation of an instrument;
(b) Action for quieting of title; and
(c) Action to consolidate ownership (Art. 1607, Civil Code).
REFORMATION OF AN INSTRUMENT
(1) It is not an action brought to reform a contract but to reform the instrument
evidencing the contract. It presupposes that there is nothing wrong with the contract
itself because there is a meeting of minds between the parties. The contract is to
be reformed because despite the meeting of minds of the parties as to the
object and cause of the contract, the instrument which is supposed to
embody the agreement of the parties does not reflect their true agreement
by reason of mistake, inequitable conduct or accident. The action is brought so
the true intention of the parties may be expressed in the instrument (Art. 1359, CC).
(2) The instrument may be reformed if it does not express the true intention of
the parties because of lack of skill of the person drafting the instrument (Art.
1363, CC). If the parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of property,
but the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a
right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper (Art. 1365,
CC).
(3) Where the consent of a party to a contract has been procured by
fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, and an instrument was executed
by the parties in accordance with the contract, what is defective is the
contract itself because of vitiation of consent. The remedy is not to bring an
action for reformation of the instrument but to file an action for annulment of the
contract (Art. 1359, CC).
(4) Reformation of the instrument cannot be brought to reform any of
the following:
(a) Simple donation inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
(b) Wills; or
(c) When the agreement is void (Art. 1666, CC).
QUIETING OF TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY
(1) This action is brought to remove a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein. The action contemplates a
situation where the instrument or a record is apparently valid or
effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable
or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title to real
property. This action is then brought to remove a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein. It may also be brought as a preventive
remedy to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or
any interest therein (Art. 476).
(2) The plaintiff need not be in possession of the real property before
he may bring the action as long as he can show that he has a legal or an
equitable title to the property which is the subject matter of the
action (Art. 477).
CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP
(1) The concept of consolidation of ownership under Art. 1607, Civil Code, has its
origin in the substantive provisions of the law on sales. Under the law, a contract of
sale may be extinguished either by legal redemption (Art. 1619) or conventional
redemption (Art. 1601).
Legal redemption (retracto legal) is a statutory mandated redemption of a
property previously sold. For instance, a co-owner of a property may exercise the
right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or any of them are
sold to a third person (Art. 1620). The owners of adjoining lands shall have the right
of redemption when a piece of rural land with a size of one hectare or less is
alienated (Art. 1621).
Conventional redemption (pacto de retro) sale is one that is not mandated by the
statute but one which takes place because of the stipulation of the parties to the sale.
The period of redemption may be fixed by the parties in which case the period cannot
exceed ten (10) years from the date of the contract. In the absence of any
agreement, the redemption period shall be four (4) years from the date of the
contract (Art. 1606).
When the redemption is not made within the period agreed
upon, in case the subject matter of the sale is a real property, Art.
1607 provides that the consolidation of ownership in the vendee
shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial
order, after the vendor has been duly heard.
(2) 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. The lapse of the redemption period without the seller a
retro exercising his right of redemption, consolidates ownership or
title upon the person of the vendee by operation of law. Art. 1607
requires the filing of the petition to consolidate ownership because
the law precludes the registration of the consolidated title without
judicial order (Cruz vs. Leis, 327 SCRA 570).
