1

Civil Procedure Rules 62 71

Dec 19
Posted by Magz
Rule 62 Interpleader
1. Interpleader
1. Original action
2. Presupposes that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of
the action or has an interest therein which, in whole or part, is not
disputed by the other parties to the action;
3. Complaint in interpleader must be answered 15 days from service of
summons.
Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
1. Requisites for action for declaratory relief:
1. Subject matter of controversy is a deed, will, contract, or other written
instrument, statute, executive order, or regulation, or ordinance;
Court may refuse to adjudicate where decision would not terminate the
uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action OR where the
declaration is not necessary and proper at the time;
2. Terms and validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction;
3. No breach of the document, otherwise ordinary civil action is the
remedy;
Must be before breach is committed, as in the case where the petitioner
paid under protest the fees imposed by an ordinance. Declaratory relief still
proper because the applicability of the ordinance to future transactions still
remains to be resolved, although the matter could be threshed out in an
ordinary suit for the recovery of the fees paid.
4. There is an actual justiciable controversy between persons whose
interests are adverse;
5. The same is ripe for adjudication;
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of
action or proceeding.
Rule 64
Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of
the Commission on Elections and The Commission on Audit
For petition for review of judgments and final orders of the COMELEC and
COA period to file is 30 days to be counted from notice of the judgment or
final order or resolution sought to be reviewed and not from the receipt of
the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration; the period to file petition is
merely interrupted by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration and
continues to run again for the remaining period which shall not be less than
5 days from notice of denial.

Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

1. 1.

Certiorari

1. Purpose to correct an act performed by respondent;

2. Act sought to be controlled discretionary acts;
3. Respondent one who exercises judicial functions and acted with
grave abuse of discretion or in lack or excess of jurisdiction.
4. Generally directed against an interlocutory order of the court prior to
appeal from the judgment in the main case;
5. Need merely be filed seasonably (within 60 days), without undue delay
and before the act, order, or proceedings, sought to be reviewed or set
aside has become fait accompli such that any reversal thereof shall
have become academic;
6. Unless a writ of preliminary injunction shall have issued, does NOT stay
the challenged order;
7. Parties are the aggrieved parties against the lower court or quasijudicial agency and the prevailing parties;
8. Motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent, subject to certain
exceptions;
9. Higher court exercises original jurisdiction under its power of control
and supervision over the orders of lower courts.
If CA reverses the judge, the latter may not go the SC via a petition for
certiorari. He is merely a nominal party, and he should not seek the reversal
of a decision that is unfavorable to the action taken by him.
Professional Regulation Commission vs. CA It is well settled that the
remedies of ordinary appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not
alternative or successive. However, it has also been held that after a
judgment has been rendered and an appeal therefrom had been perfected, a
petition for certiorari relating to certain incidents therein may prosper where
the appeal does not appear to be a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. In
this case, the SC noted that, while petitioners tried to justify their recourse to
both an appeal and to a petition for certiorari by claiming that their appeal
would not constitute a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, they did not see
fit to withdraw or abandon said appeal after filing the petition. Thus, both
the CA and SC are reviewing the same decision of the RTC at the same time.
Such a situation would lead to absurdity and confusion in the ultimate
disposition of the case.
1. 2.

Prohibition

2. 3.

Mandamus

3. 4. When SC allows the writ of certiorari even when appeal is available

and proper:
4. 5. Cases where Motion for Reconsideration is NOT condition
precedent for certiorari:

1. 6. The period for filing any of the 3 actions is not later than 60
days from notice of judgment, order, or resolution sought to be
reviewed.
1. Purpose to prevent the commission or carrying out of an act;
2. Act sought to be controlled discretionary and ministerial acts;
3. Respondent one who exercises judicial or non-judicial functions.
1. Purpose to compel the performance of the act desired;
2. Act sought to be controlled ministerial act;
3. Respondent one who performs judicial or non-judicial functions.
1. Appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;
2. Orders were issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
3. For certain special considerations, such as public welfare or policy;
4. Where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the
prosecution, as in acquittal;
5. Where the order is a patent nullity;
6. Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigation.
1. Order is a patent nullity;
2. Questions raised in the certiorari proceeding were duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court;
3. Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further
delay would prejudice the interests of the government;
4. Under the circumstances, a motion for recon would be useless;
5. Petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency
for relief;
6. Where in a criminal case, relief from order or arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
7. Proceedings in the lower court are null for lack of due process;
8. Proceeding was ex parte or in which petitioner had no opportunity to
object;
9. Issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether
such motion is required or not, the 60-day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion. (SC Circular 56-2000, effective
September 1, 2000)

No extension of
time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in
no case exceeding 15 days. (SC Circular 56-2000)

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

1. 1.

Quo Warranto distinguished from Election Contest:

Quo Warranto

Election Contest

Basis is that occupant is disqualified Challenge rights of a person to hold

from holding office by reason of
office on the ground of irregularities
ineligibility or disloyalty
in the conduct of the election
If successful, respondent is ousted Successful protestant will assume
but petitioner shall not
office if he had obtained plurality of
automatically assume the office
valid votes
vacated

Rule 67 Expropriation
1. In expropriation, the complaint must be verified.
2. The defendant can only file an answer instead of a motion to dismiss
1. The final order of expropriation is appealable, but the lower court
may determine the just compensation to be paid.
The power of eminent domain is exercised by the filing of a complaint
which shall join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or
occupying, any party of the expropriated land or interest therein. If a known
owner is not joined as defendant, he is entitled to intervene in the
proceedings; or if he is joined but not served with process and the
proceeding is already closed before he came to know of the condemnation,
he may maintain an independent suit for damages.
Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
1. 1.

Forcible entry distinguished from Unlawful detainer

Forcible entry

Unlawful detainer

Possession of land is unlawful from

the beginning due to force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth
No requirement of previous demand
for defendant to vacate premises
Plaintiff must prove that he was in
prior physical possession until he
was deprived thereof by defendant
1-year period counted from date of
actual entry or when plaintiff
learned thereof.

Possession of defendant is
inceptively lawful but becomes
illegal by reason of termination of
right of possession
Demand is jurisdictional
Plaintiff need not have been in prior
physical possession
1-year period from date of last
demand

2. When prior demand in unlawful detainer actions not required;

1. When purpose of action is to terminate lease because of expiry of term
and not because of failure to pay rental or to comply with terms of
lease contract;

2. Purpose of suit is not for ejectment but for enforcement of terms of

contract;
3. When defendant is not a tenant but a pure intruder
In all other cases, there must be a demand:
1. To pay or to comply with the conditions of the lease; AND
2. To vacate by written notice on the person in the premises or by posting
such notice on the premises if no person is found thereon and this is a
condition precedent to the filing of the case; ORAL demand is not
permitted.
1. If demand is in the alternative (pay OR vacate), this is NOT the
demand contemplated by the Rules.
3. When the defendant raises the issue of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the latter issue shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession.
A forcible entry/unlawful detainer action has an entirely different subject
matter from that of an action for reconveyance. The former involves
material possession, and the latter, ownership. Thus, the pendency of an
action for reconveyance does not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction over an
action for FE/UD, nor will it preclude execution of judgment in the ejectment
case where the only issue involved is material possession.
Rule 71 Contempt
1. 1.

Criminal contempt

2. 2.

Civil Contempt

3. 3.

Direct Contempt (contempt in facie curiae)

4. 4.

Indirect Contempt

1. Purpose is to vindicate public authority;

2. Conduct directed against the dignity or authority of the court.
1. Purpose is to protect and enforce civil rights and remedies for the
litigants;
2. Failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of a party.
1. Committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge;
2. Punished summarily without hearing;
3. No appeal may be taken but the party adjudged in contempt may avail
himself of actions of certiorari or prohibition which shall stay the
execution of the judgment, provided a bond fixed by the court is filed.
1. Not committed in the presence of the court;
2. Punished only after hearing complaint in writing or motion or party or
order of court requiring person to appear and explain, opportunity to
appear and show cause.