Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES_#BaeNotesSeries MUTUAL (parehas nagkamali ang parties).

If the
Atty. Tranquil Salvador III other party confirms that he was the one who
Topic: Rule 63 – Declaratory Relief committed mistake, then reform. But in case wala
talaga magkasundo, no meeting of the minds, then
 Remember the first section. 1st par does not require you cannot reform.
breach, and it is the declaratory relief. 2nd par is
other similar remedies, it is not declaratory relief.  Where do you file action for reformation? MAY be
brought before the RTC according to 2nd par. In
 Madalas ginagamit ito kapag may batas na Malabo. quieting of title/removal of cloud? This was
Kasi kapag may violation of right, wala ng explained in case of Sabitsana vs. Muertegi. The
declaratory relief. The person asks for the court with jurisdiction is RTC.
interpretation of the court with regard to contracts,
laws, rules, ordinance etc. It pertains in the rule  Any case that touch on the title of a property, if
making power of the government. there is a real property involved, or if it involves
title or possession of real property, it will be based
 Given example was the case of Commisioner of on the assessed value of the property. BUT, If it is
Customs vs. Hypermix Feeds Corporation. about quieting of title/removal of the cloud, RTC.
In case of accion publiciana, also depends on the
 Kapag outside of laws, you can also ask the court assessed value.
to interpret it, such as will, contracts, deeds. There
is no breach/violation. The very moment there is  In consolidation of ownership, it is with the RTC.
breach, forget about declaratory relief. The value of the subject matter is not important.
The consolidation is by reason of pacto de retro, it
 If there happens a breach during the pendency of pertains to failure to redeem the property.
declaratory relief, there will be a conversion of the
case. The action will be converted from the special  In declaratory relief, this is a case wherein the
civil action to an ordinary civil action. court is not compelled to take an action. It will not
put to rest the controversy because it is not an
 You come into court not to determine your rights, actual controversy. You have to convince the court
but as to determine is there provisional. How does that it is right for judicial intervention.
that provision of the law affect me? No rights are
suspended, however there is also no remedy that  Basta rule making is involved, Declaratory Relief.
is why you are asking for an interpretation. But in some cases, under the CONSTITUTION, any
act of the government or its instrumentality with
 Kapag may violation na, you need relief, not grave abuse of discretion, can be brought to court
interpretation. and subject to a petition for certiorari that is
UNDER THE CONSTITUITON, not under rule 65.
 During the interpretation/determination of rights in
case of a contract, in the meantime, the other party  *Understand the difference of certiorari under rule
may be enjoined by an injuction to prevent them 65 and certiorari under the constitution. This is
from not complying with the contract, and for that very tricky.
reason the contract is extended.
 Under rule 65, you can only file certiorari for any
 Which court has jurisdiction? For the 1st par, it is judicial and quasi-judicial action.
the RTC.
 There are some decisions that interprets rule or
 The failure to state the true object of the parties, executive order, but it is certiorari. The proper
in case of contract, should brought about by thing to do is declaratory relief. So basta rule
mistake. For reformation, the mistake should be making power, it is safe to go with the declaratory
relief, also for purposes of the bar.

You might also like