You are on page 1of 8

Atty.

Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions


DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES RULE 63 1. the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order
I. Meaning of declaratory relief or regulation, or ordinance;
2. the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful
Ferrer, Jr. v. Roco, Jr., G.R. No. 174129, 05 July 2010 and require judicial construction;
Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in 3. there must have been no breach of the documents in question;
a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or 4. there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the ripening
resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising seeds of one between persons whose interests are adverse;
from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for 5. the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that 6. adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms
may be raised in such a petition is the question of construction or of action or proceeding.
validity of the provisions in an instrument or statute.
A. Justiciable controversy
II. Purpose of an action for declaratory relief Section 1, Rule 63
Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, 28 April 2004
Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy
contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is
statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other conjectural or merely anticipatory.
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof bring an action
in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or Commissioner of Customs, et al. v. Hypermix Feeds Corp., G.R. No.
validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. (Bar Matter 179579, 01 February 2012
No. 803, 17 February 1998) the issue raised by respondent is ripe for judicial determination,
because litigation is inevitable for the simple and uncontroverted
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or reason that respondent is not included in the enumeration of flour
remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil millers classified as food grade wheat importers. Thus, as the trial
Code, may be brought under this Rule. court stated, it would have to file a protest case each time it imports
food grade wheat and be subjected to the 7% tariff.
Martelino v. NHMFC, G.R. No. 160208, 30 June 2008
The purpose of the action for declaratory relief is to secure an 1. Effect of absence of justiciable controversy
authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties
under a statute, deed, contract, etc. for their guidance in its Republic v. Roque, G.R. No. 204603, 24 September 2013
enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising from its a justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy
alleged breach. It may be entertained only before the breach or that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is
violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it refers. Where conjectural or merely anticipatory. Corollary thereto, by "ripening
the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of seeds" it is meant, not that sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed
an action for declaratory relief, the court can no longer assume with, but that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it has
jurisdiction over the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and violence
cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or the other party, of a full-blown battle that looms ahead. The concept describes a state
there is nothing more for the court to explain or clarify short of a of facts indicating imminent and inevitable litigation provided that the
judgment or final order. issue is not settled and stabilized by tranquilizing declaration.
Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become
Galicto v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193978, 28 February 2012 pleas for declaratory relief, over which the Court has no original
Under the Rules of Court, petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are jurisdiction.
availed of to question judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts. Since
the issuance of an EO is not judicial, quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, Jimenes v. Roa, G.R. No. L-30496, 31 May 1971
a petition for certiorari and prohibition is an incorrect remedy; instead The courts are not called upon to resolve problems as a "pure
a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, academic exercise", as stated in Aragones vs. Subido; "(T)he general
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper recourse to rule has always been that courts cannot furnish answers to
assail the validity of EO purposeless questions that do not exist. Even in cases of
declaratory relief, there must be an actual and justiciable, not merely
III. Requisites of an action for declaratory relief - Section 1, Rule 63 theoretical, controversy." The requisites of justiciability of an
action for declaratory relief must be present, satisfying the court
Requisites of an action for declaratory relief: (Ferrer Jr. v. Roco Jr.) that "an actual controversy, or the ripening of one, exists between
parties all of whom are sui juris and before the court, and that the
declaration sought will be a practical, help in ending the controversy."
1 | Paumig Notes
Atty. Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions
a third-party complaint is inconceivable when the main case is one for
2 Effect where the law or contract has already been contravened nothing more' than a declaratory relief. In a third-party complaint, the
Malana v. Tappa, G.R. No. 181303, 17 September 2009 defendant or third-party plaintiff is supposed to seek contribution,
Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the indemnity, subrogation or any other relief from the third-party defendant is
filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer respect to the claim of the plaintiff against him.
assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no
more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has C. Issue is Ripe for Judicial Determination
already been infringed or transgressed before the institution of the
action. Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, 90 Phil. 83 (1951)
The authorities are unanimous that in order that an action for
3. Action for declaratory relief after breach is objectionable declaratory relief may be entertained, it must be predicated on the
Sebastian Sarmiento, et al. v. Hon. Capapas, et al. G.R. No. L-15509, 31 following requisite facts or conditions:
March 1962 1. there must be a justiciable controversy;
The institution of an action for declaratory relief after a breach 2. the controversy must be between persons whose
of contract or statute, is objectionable on various grounds, among interests are adverse;
which is that it violates the rule on multiplicity of suits. If the case 3. the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal
were allowed for a declaratory relief, the judgment therein interest in the controversy; and
notwithstanding, another action would still lie against the importer 4. the issue involved must be ripe for judicial
respondent for violation of the barter law. So, instead of one case only determination. These requisite facts are wanting and,
before the courts in which all issues would be decided, two cases will therefore, the complaint must fail for lack of sufficient cause
be allowed, one being the present action for declaratory relief and a of action.
subsequent one for the confiscation of the importations as a
consequence of the breach of the barter law. Justiciability; its requisites. Except that accomplished physical
wrong need not be alleged in a petition for declaratory relief, a case of
Quisumbing v. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, 08 December 2008 such nature must exhibit all the usual conditions of an ordinary action.
In Martelino v. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, we held There must be (1) real parties in interest (2) asserting adverse
that the purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative statement claims and (3) presenting a ripe issue. The Supreme Court of
of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, Pennsylvania summarized its exhaustive opinion on the requisites of
contract, etc., for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and justiciability of an action for declaratory relief by saying that the court
not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach. It may be must be "satisfied that an actual controversy, or the ripening
entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, seeds of one, exists between parties, all of whom are sui juris
contract, etc. to which it refers. Where the law or contract has and before the court, and that the declaration sought will be a
already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for practical help in ending the controversy." Justice Brandeis thought
declaratory relief, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction that "the fact that the plaintiff's desires are thwarted by its own doubts,
over the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a cause of or by the fears of others does not confer a cause of action." But the
action has already accrued in favor of one or the other party, there is doubt becomes a justiciable controversy when it is translated into a
nothing more for the court to explain or clarify, short of a judgment or claim of right which is actually contested. (Moran's Comm. on the Rules
final order. of Court, vol. II, pp. 131-132, 3rd Ed.).

Thus, the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the action IV. Who may file petition for declaratory relief Section 1, Rule 63
despite the fact that the subject thereof had already been breached by
Gov. Garcia prior to the filing of the action. Nonetheless, the Baguio Citizens Action, Inc. v. City Council and City Mayor of
conversion of the petition into an ordinary civil action is warranted Baguio, G.R. No. L-27247, 20 April 1983
under Sec. 6, Rule 63 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
B. Legal Interest in the Controversy which would be affected by the declaration is a jurisdictional defect.
1. Third-party complaint is not proper when the main case is Said section merely states that "All persons shall be made
declaratory relief parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected
by the declaration; and no declaration shall, except or otherwise
Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-21036, 30 June 1977 provided in these rules, prejudice the rights of persons not
it is in the very nature of a 'declaratory relief special civil action that "the parties to the action." This section contemplates a situation where
Relief is confined to a case of actual controversy within the Court's there are other persons who would be affected by the declaration, but
jurisdiction, without the need of injunction, execution or other relief beyond were not impleaded as necessary parties, in which case the declaration
the adjudication of the legal rights which are the subject of controversy shall not prejudice them. If at all, the case may be dismissed not on the
between the parties." ground of lack of jurisdiction but for the reason stated in Section 5 of
2 | Paumig Notes
Atty. Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions
the same Rule stating that "the Court may refuse to exercise the power for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty
to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case where a thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
rise to the action, or any case where the declaration or construction is which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
not necessary and proper at the time under all circumstances." Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
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 3. In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demands or
declaration of the final and pacifying function the action for claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro
declaratory relief is calculated to sub serve, as they would not be Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
bound by the declaration and may raise the Identical issue (200,000.00);

V. When and where to file petition for declaratory relief 4. In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value
Malana v. Tappa, G.R. No. 181303, 17 September 2009 of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in
When: An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two
interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or
an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the 5. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument
and the judicial declaration of the parties rights or duties thereunder. 6. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
Who: Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial 7. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of
a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
Where: To determine which court has jurisdiction over the actions
identified in the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of 8. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
Court, said provision must be read together with those of the Judiciary whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended. the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred
Court does not categorically require that an action to quiet title thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691*)
be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word may that an
action for quieting of title may be brought under the Rule on petitions BP 129. Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
for declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition for Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. Metropolitan Trial
declaratory relief may bring an action in the appropriate Regional Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
Trial Court. The use of the word may in a statute denotes that the
provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
opportunity or an option. proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word shall and thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest
of real property where the assessed value does not exceed damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
P20,000.00. costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided,
That where there are several claims or causes of action between the
BP 129. Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable out of the same or different transactions;
of pecuniary estimation;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
2. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot
property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or
3 | Paumig Notes
Atty. Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions
be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership
shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. VII. Notice of the Solicitor General Section 3, Rule 63

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title Section 3. Notice on Solicitor General. In any action which involves the
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the validity of a statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified by the party assailing the same
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro and shall be entitled to be heard upon such question. (3a, R64)
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, VIII. Validity of Local Ordinances Section 4, Rule 63
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the Section 4. Local government ordinances. In any action involving the validity
adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) of a local government ordinance, the corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the
local governmental unit involved shall be similarly notified and entitled to be heard.
De Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147932, 25 January 2006 If such ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor General shall also be
Before resolving the substantive issues in this case, the Court will address notified and entitled to be heard. (4a, R64)
the procedural issue raised by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The OSG contends that instead of Rule 65, Rule 43 is applicable to the IX. Court action is discretionary - Section 5, Rule 63
present case. Thus, the OSG argues that the petition should be dismissed
outright for being filed with this Court, instead of with the Court of Appeals, Section 5. Court action discretionary. Except in actions falling under the
under a wrong mode of appeal. On the other hand, assuming Rule 65 second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the court, motu proprio or upon motion,
applies, the OSG points out that the petition for certiorari should be filed may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in
with the Court of Appeals. any case where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which
gave rise to the action, or in any case where the declaration or construction is not
Based on Memorandum Circular No. 58, the resolution of the DOJ Secretary necessary and proper under the circumstances. (5a, R64)
is appealable administratively to the Office of the President since the
offenses charged in this case are punishable by reclusion perpetua. From Exceptions Action for reformation of instrument, for quieting of title, for
the Office of the President, the aggrieved party may file an appeal with the consolidation of ownership under Article 1607
Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 43.
X. Conversion into ordinary action Section 6, Rule 63
Even assuming that the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion
in rendering the assailed Resolutions amounting to lack or excess of Section 6. Conversion into ordinary action. If before the final termination of
jurisdiction, petitioner should have filed the instant petition for certiorari the case, a breach or violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or
with the Court of Appeals. Hence, on the issue alone of the propriety of the regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation should take place, the
remedy sought by petitioner, this petition for certiorari must fail. However, action may thereupon be converted into an ordinary action, and the parties shall be
considering the gravity of the offenses charged and the need to expedite allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper. (6a, R64)
the disposition of this case, the Court will relax the rules and finally resolve
this case in the interest of substantial justice. Quisumbing v. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, 08 December 2008
In Martelino v. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, we held that
Melchor v. Gironella, 491 Phil. 653 the purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative statement of the
It bears noting that the period stated in paragraph 5, Section 20 of Rep. rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc.,
Act No. 6770 does not refer to the prescription of the offense but to the for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues
discretion given to the Office of the Ombudsman on whether it will arising from its alleged breach. It may be entertained only before the
investigate a particular administrative offense. Note that the word used in breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it refers.
the provision is may. The term may is construed as permissive and Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing
operating to confer discretion. Moreover, where the words of a statute of an action for declaratory relief, the court can no longer assume
are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal jurisdiction over the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a
meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or the other party,
there is nothing more for the court to explain or clarify, short of a
VI. Parties Section 2, Rule 63 judgment or final order.

Section 2. Parties. All persons who have or claim any interest which would be Thus, the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the action despite
affected by the declaration shall be made parties; and no declaration shall, except the fact that the subject thereof had already been breached by Gov. Garcia
as otherwise provided in these Rules, prejudice the rights of persons not parties to prior to the filing of the action. Nonetheless, the conversion of the
the action. petition into an ordinary civil action is warranted under Sec. 6, Rule
63
4 | Paumig Notes
Atty. Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions
XI. Similar remedies 6. In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the
parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the
A. Reformation of instrument performance of any other obligation.

Bentir v. Leanda, G.R. No. 128991, 12 April 2000


In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits or other benefit to be
Reformation of an instrument is that remedy in equity by means of
received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest
which a written instrument is made or construed so as to express
which shall be subject to the usury laws.
or conform to the real intention of the parties when some error or
mistake has been committed. It is predicated on the equitable maxim
that equity treats as done that which ought to be done. NCC. Art. 1603. In case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with
right to repurchase shall be construed as an equitable mortgage. (n)
The remedy of reformation of an instrument is grounded on the principle of
equity where, in order to express the true intention of the contracting 1. Reformation of instrument distinguished from annulment of
parties, an instrument already executed is allowed by law to be reformed. contract
The right of reformation is necessarily an invasion or limitation of
the parol evidence rule since, when a writing is reformed, the result Veluz v. Veluz, G.R. No. L-23261, 31 July 1968
is that an oral agreement is by court decree made legally effective The purpose of an action and the law that should govern it, including the
period of prescription should be determined by the complaint itself its
The remedy, being an extraordinary one, must be subject to limitations as allegations and prayer for relief.
may be provided by law. Our law and jurisprudence set such limitations, The action for reformation of instrument should not be confused with the
among which is laches. A suit for reformation of an instrument may action for annulment of contract. Reformation of instrument
be barred by lapse of time. The prescriptive period for actions based presupposes a valid, existing contract, in which there had been a
upon a written contract and for reformation of an instrument is ten (10) meeting of the minds of the parties but the instrument drawn up
years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code and signed by them does not correctly express the terms of their
agreement. Annulment of a contract, on the other hand,
Prescription is intended to suppress stale and fraudulent claims arising presupposes a defective contract in which the minds of the parties
from transactions like the one at bar which facts had become so obscure did not meet, or the consent of one was vitiated.
from the lapse of time or defective memory. The equity of reformation is ordinarily limited to written agreements, and
its purpose is to establish and perpetuate the true agreement; annulment,
Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 635 (1989) on the other hand, is intended to declare the inefficiency which the contract
Settled is the rule that to create the presumption enunciated by Article already carries in itself and to render the contract inefficacious.
1602, the existence of one circumstance is enough. The said article
expressly provides therefor "in any of the following cases," hence the 2. Requisites of reformation
existence of any of the circumstances enumerated therein, not a Multi-Ventures Capital v. Stalwart Management Services Corp., G.R. No.
concurrence nor an overwhelming number of such circumstances, suffices 157439, 04 July 2007
to give rise to the presumption that the contract with the right of Reformation is a remedy in equity, whereby a written instrument is
repurchase is an equitable mortgage. made or construed so as to express or conform to the real intention
It is a well-entrenched principle in the interpretation of contracts that if the of the parties, where some error or mistake has been committed. In
terms thereof are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the granting reformation, the remedy in equity is not making a new contract
contracting parties the literal meaning of the stipulation shall control but for the parties, but establishing and perpetuating the real contract between
when the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the the parties which, under the technical rules of law, could not be enforced
parties, the latter shall prevail over the former but for such reformation.

NCC. Art. 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, in Requisites of Reformation:
any of the following cases: 1. there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the
contract;
2. the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties; and
1. When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate;
3. the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the
2. When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;
parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.
3. When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase, another
instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is
NIA v. Gamit, G.R. No. 85869, 06 November 1992
executed;
"A contract", according to Article 1305 of the Civil Code, "is a meeting of
4. When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price;
the minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to
5. When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;
the other, to give something or to render some service." Once the minds of

5 | Paumig Notes
Atty. Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions
the contracting parties meet, a valid contract exists, whether it is reduced Article 1362. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or
to writing or not. And, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced inequitably in such a way that the instrument does not show their true intention, the
to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and former may ask for the reformation of the instrument.
there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement, Article 1363. When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that
except when it fails to express the true intent and agreement of the parties the instrument did not state their real agreement, but concealed that fact from the
thereto, in which case, one of the parties may bring an action for the former, the instrument may be reformed.
reformation of the instrument to the end that such true intention may be
expressed Article 1364. When through the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on
the part of the person drafting the instrument or of the clerk or typist, the
In order that an action for reformation of instrument as provided in Article instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, the courts may order
1359 of the Civil Code may prosper, the following requisites must concur: that the instrument be reformed.
(1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to
the contract; (2) the instrument does not express the true intention Article 1365. If two parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of real or personal
of the parties; and (3) the failure of the instrument to express the property, but the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a
true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper.
conduct or accident.
Article 1366. There shall be no reformation in the following cases:
3. Who may file action for reformation of instrument
(1) Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
NCC. Art. 1368. Reformation may be ordered at the instance of either party or his
successors in interest, if the mistake was mutual; otherwise, upon petition of the (2) Wills;
injured party, or his heirs and assigns.
(3) When the real agreement is void.
4. When reformation is not proper
Article 1367. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the
NCC. Art. 1366. There shall be no reformation in the following cases: instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its reformation.

1. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed; Article 1368. Reformation may be ordered at the instance of either party or his
2. Wills; successors in interest, if the mistake was mutual; otherwise, upon petition of the
3. When the real agreement is void. injured party, or his heirs and assigns.

NCC. Art. 1367. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the Article 1369. The procedure for the reformation of instrument shall be governed by
instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its reformation. rules of court to be promulgated by the Supreme Court.

5. Related laws: B. Quieting of Title


1. Requisites of quieting of title
NCC. Art. 1359-1369:
Article 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173289, 17 February 2010
contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any
embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real
accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the property. Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure an
end that such true intention may be expressed. adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to
that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any danger of
minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but hostile claim. In an action for quieting of title, the competent court is
annulment of the contract. tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other
claimants, not only to place things in their proper place, to make the one
Article 1360. The principles of the general law on the reformation of instruments who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but
are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every
Code. cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards
without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even
Article 1361. When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of the to abuse the property as he deems best
instrument to disclose their real agreement, said instrument may be reformed.

6 | Paumig Notes
Atty. Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions
It is essential for the plaintiff or complainant to have a legal title or an The essence of a pacto de retro sale is that title and ownership of the
equitable title to or interest in the real property which is the subject matter property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro, subject to the
of the action. Also, the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor a retro within the
being alleged as a cloud on plaintiffs title must be shown to be in fact stipulated period. Failure thus of the vendor a retro to perform said
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal resolutory condition vests upon the vendee by operation of law absolute
efficacy. title and ownership over the property sold. As title is already vested in the
vendee a retro, his failure to consolidate his title under Article 1607 of the
Requisites of Quieting of Title: Civil Code does not impair such title or ownership for the method
1. the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in prescribed thereunder is merely for the purpose of registering the
the real property subject of the action; and consolidated title.
2. the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud
on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its Rural Bank of Oroquieta, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-53466, 10 November
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. 1980
After the execution of a real estate mortgage, the mortgagor has an equity
2 Related laws: of redemption exercisable within the period stipulated in the mortgage
deed. In case of judicial foreclosure, that equity of redemption subsists
NCC. Art. 476-481: after the sale and before it is confirmed by the court
Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest However, in case of a judicial foreclosure of a mortgage in favor of a
therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding banking institution, section 78 of the General Banking Law grants the
which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, mortgagor a right of redemption which may be exercised within one year
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be from the sale.
brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. Under section 3, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, it is the confirmation by the
court of the auction sale that would divest the Serrano spouses of their
rights to the mortgaged lot and that would vest such rights in the bank as
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real
purchaser at the auction sale.
property or any interest therein.
The clause "subject to such rights of redemption as may be allowed by
law," found in the last part of section 3, has no application to this case
Article 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real because the mortgagor did not exercise his right of redemption under
property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of section 78 of the General Banking Law.
said property. The confirmation retroacts to the date of the sale.
A hearing should be held for the confirmation of the sale. The mortgagor
Article 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom should be notified of that hearing. Lack of notice vitiates the confirmation
when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has of the sale. The mortgagor may still redeem the mortgaged lot after the
terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription. rendition of the order confirming the sale which is void for lack of hearing
and notice to the mortgagor.
Notice and hearing of a motion for confirmation of sale are essential to the
Article 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have validity of the order of confirmation, not only to enable the interested
received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded parties to resist the motion but also to inform them of the time when their
to the plaintiff's benefit. right of redemption is cut off.
An order of confirmation, void for lack of notice and hearing, may be set
Article 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby aside anytime
adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code. It is equally settled that after the foreclosure sale but before its
confirmation, the court may grant the judgment debtor or mortgagor an
opportunity to pay the proceeds of the sale and thus refrain from
Article 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a cloud confirming it
therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall If after the foreclosure sale and before the confirmation thereof, the
promulgated. mortgagee, as purchaser at the auction sale, sold the mortgaged property
to another person, that subsequent sale does not render the foreclosure
D. Consolidation of ownership; effect of non-compliance with Article 1607 sale more effective. That subsequent sale does not prevent the trial court
from granting the mortgagor a period within which to redeem the
Cruz v. Leis, G.R. No. 125233, 09 March 2000 mortgaged lot by paying the judgment debt and the expenses of the sale
It bears stressing that notwithstanding Article 1607, the recording in the and costs
Registry of Property of the consolidation of ownership of the vendee is not In the instant case, where the foreclosure sale has not yet been
a condition sine qua non to the transfer of ownership. confirmed but the statutory one-year period for redemption expired
and the mortgaged lot was sold by the mortgagee (as the only
7 | Paumig Notes
Atty. Alcudia | Notes for 2nd Meeting | Special Civil Actions
bidder at the auction sale) to a third person, the trial court should
give the purchaser a chance to be heard before requiring the
mortgagee-bank to accept the redemption price tendered by the
mortgagors.

1. Related laws:
NCC. Art. 1607 and 1616:
Article 1607. In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the vendee
by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of article 1616
shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, after the
vendor has been duly heard. (n)

Article 1616. The vendor cannot avail himself of the right of repurchase without
returning to the vendee the price of the sale, and in addition:

(1) The expenses of the contract, and any other legitimate payments made by
reason of the sale;
(2) The necessary and useful expenses made on the thing sold. (1518)

XI. Remedy from adverse ruling


Commissioner of Customs, et al. v. Hypermix Feeds Corp., G.R. No.
179579, 01 February 2012

XII. Effect of failure to raise issue before the trial court


Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara, G.R. No. 143188, 14 February 2007
...An issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Well-settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proved


positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be established by
mere allegations in the pleadings and cannot be resolved in a motion to
dismiss. At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the
ground of laches is premature. Those issues must be resolved at the trial of
the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity
to prove their respective claims and defenses.

Martelino v. NHMFC, G.R. No. 160208, 30 June 2008


issue of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

8 | Paumig Notes

You might also like