DECLARATORY RELIEF – an action by any person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to

determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute; and for a declaration of his
rights and duties thereunder
- The ONLY ISSUE that may be raised in such a petition is the question of construction or validity of provisions in an
instrument or statute (Province of Camarines Sur v. CA)
- Such action must be justified, as no other adequate relief or remedy is available under the circumstances (Almeda v.
Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc. 542 SCRA 470,478)
PURPOSE OF DECLARATORY RELIEF:
1. To determine any question of construction or validity arising from the subject of the action, and
2. Seek for a declaration of the petitioner’s rights thereunder (Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court)
In its practical application, actions to declare a law, a statute or executive order UNCONSTITUTIONAL have been brought as petitions for
declaratory relief (Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. v. Republic)
3. An action for declaratory relief is brought to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a contract or
statute for their guidance in the enforcement or compliance with the same (Meralco v. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc.) and NOT to
settle issues arising from its alleged breach (Tambunting v. Sumabat). It DOES NOT ASK for affirmative reliefs like injunction, damages or any
other relief beyond the purpose of the petition. A declaratory relief proceeding is unavailable where judgment would have to be made, only
after a judicial investigation of disputed issues (Kawasaki Port Service Corporation v. Amores).
Two types of Actions under Rule 63:
1. Action for declaratory relief
2. Similar remedies:
a. Action for the reformation of an instrument (Arts. 1359-1369 of the Civil Code)
b. Action for quieting of title to real property or remove clouds therefrom (Arts. 476-481, Civil Code); and
c. Action for consolidation of ownership (Art. 1607, Civil Code) (in a sale with a right to repurchase [Reyes v. Dizon])
When court may refuse a judicial declaration
1. Action for declaratory relief – the court, “motu propio or upon motion, may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe
instruments in 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 necessary and proper under the circumstances” (Section 5, Rule 63, Rules of Court)
– A refusal of the court to declare a right or construe an instrument may be considered as the functional equivalent of the
dismissal of the petition but on any of the 2 grounds under Section 5 of Rule 63, namely:
a. Where a decision on the petition would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action; or
b. Where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the circumstances as when the instrument or the
statute has already been breached.
2. Similar Remedies – the court does not have the discretion to refuse to act; Thus, in an action for reformation of an instrument, quieting of title
or consolidation of ownership, the court cannot refuse to act and render a judgment. (Section 5 of Rule 63)
Requisites for Declaratory Relief
1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or
ordinance;
2. The terms of said statute or document and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
3. There must have been no breach of the statute or document in question;
4. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons whose interests are adverse;
5. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.
Subject Matter in a Petition for Declaratory Relief; Exclusive (DWCSEOA)
1. Deed; 5. Executive order or regulation;
2. Will; 6. Ordinance; or
3. Contract or other written instrument; 7. Any other governmental regulation (Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court)
4. Statute;
When a petition for Declaratory Relief is not proper/improper (Examples):
1. An action for declaratory relief to ask the court to declare his filiation and consequently his hereditary rights (Edades v. Edades)
2. An action for declaratory relief to seek judicial declaration of citizenship to correct a previous unilateral registration by petitioner as an
alien (Obiles v. Republic)
3. A petition for declaratory relief for the purpose of seeking enlightenment as to the true import of a judgment – the remedy is to move for a
CLARIFICATORY JUDGMENT
A court decision cannot be interpreted as included within the purview of the words “other written instrument” because the provisions of
the Rules of Court already provide for the ways by which an ambiguous or doubtful decision may be corrected or clarified without need of
resorting to a petition for declaratory relief (Reyes v. Dizon).
4. A petition for declaratory relief to assail a judgment – BEFORE a judgment becomes final and executory, the aggrieved party may file a:
a. motion for reconsideration,
b. motion for new trial, or
c. perfect an appeal.
– AFTER the judgment becomes final and executory, he may file a:
i. Petition for relief from judgment, or
ii. An action to annul the judgment
Section 1, Rule 63 does not mention a judgment as a proper subject of a petition for declaratory relief.
5. Even if the subject is one enumerated under the Rules, where the contract or statute is clear in its terms and there is no doubt as to its
meaning and validity, a petition for declaratory relief is IMPROPER.
ISSUE – the only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the question of construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute
REMEDY sought – the declaration of the petitioner’s rights or duties
Who may file the petition
1. Where the subject of the petition is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument – petition is commenced by “any person interested”
therein (Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court; Social Justice Society v. Lina) [Note: Those who may sue under the contract should have an
interest therein like the parties, their assignees and heirs as required by substantive law (Article 1311, Civil Code).]
2. Where the subject of the petition is a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation – petition is
commenced by one “whose rights are affected” by the same (Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court)
Other Parties – refer to all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration (Section 2, Rule 63, Rules of Court)
– Persons not made parties to the action do not stand to be prejudiced by the declaration (Section 2, Rule 63, Rules of Court). Since
their rights are not to be prejudiced by their non-inclusion, the failure to implead such persons does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court over the petition (Baguio Citizen’s Action v. The City Council).
– Where the validity of a local government ordinance is involved: the corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the local government unit
involved shall be NOTIFIED and ENTITLED to be heard (Section 4, Rule 63)
– Where the validity of a statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation is involved: the Solicitor
General shall be NOTIFIED by the party assailing the same and shall be ENTITLED to be heard upon such question (Section 3, Rule
63)
Court with Jurisdiction – the action for declaratory relief should be brought in the appropriate Regional Trial Court (RTC). The purpose of the
petition is to ask the court to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the subject matter thereof, and for the declaration of
rights and duties thereunder. Hence, the subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief raises issues which are NOT CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION and must be filed with the RTC (Section 19[1], B.P. 129; Section 1, Rule 63)
– The SC has NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over a petition for declaratory relief. It only has an APPELLATE JURISDICTION over the
petition (Clark Investors and Locators Association, Inc. v. Secretary of Finance).
– It is procedurally inappropriate to question the validity of an executive order issued by the President of the Philippines through a
petition for certiorari. A petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 is the proper recourse since the issuance of the executive order is
not a judicial or quasi-judicial act (Galicto v. Aquino).
– A petition for declaratory relief is, likewise, the remedy to set aside an executive order issued by a city mayor who issued the
executive order in connection with his executive functions (Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila).
– Where the action is one for quieting of title: the jurisdiction will depend upon the assessed value of the real property
– Where the action is one for reconveyance of title to real property or cancellation of title to real property: the objective of the
action is to actually obtain title to real property. Such actions are real actions, jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed
value of the property.
– An action for consolidation of ownership should also be instituted with the RTC. The assessed value, in this case, should not be
considered in the determination of jurisdiction because the action does not involve recovery of title to, or ownership of, real property.
As held in Cruz v. Leis, the failure by the vendor to redeem the property within the stipulated period, vests upon the vendee absolute
title and ownership over the property sold. The action brought for consolidation of ownership is merely to obtain a judicial order to
effect the registration of the consolidated ownership in the Registry of Property, not to acquire ownership or title over the property.
Hence, it is not a real action.
Petition for Declaratory Relief treated as a Petition for Prohibition
The Court ruled that there are precedents for treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition if the case has far-reaching
implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for the public good. A petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts
of executive officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority. The imposition of VAT on toll fees, explained the Court, has far-reaching
implications. Its imposition would impact, not only on the more than half a million motorists who use the tollways every day, but more so on the
government’s effort to raise revenue for funding various projects and reducing budgetary deficits. To dismiss the petition and resolve the issues
later, after the challenged VAT has been imposed, could cause more mischief both to the tax-paying public and the government. A belated
declaration of nullity of the BIR action would make any attempt to refund to the motorists what they paid an administrative nightmare with no
solution. Although the petition does not strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 65[, the Court has ample power to WAIVE such TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS when legal questions to be resolved are of great importance to the public. The same may be said of the requirement of locus
standi which is a mere procedural requisite (Diaz v. Secretary of Finance).
There are instances when a petitioner is faced with what the Supreme Court terms as “PROCEDURAL BARRIERS” as when he files a petiton
for declaratory relief with the Supreme Court which has NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over such petition. On this ground alone, the petition can be
outright dismissed. When, however, the threshold and purely legal issue in the petition has far-reaching implications to the national economy, the
Court may treat the petition for declaratory relief as one for mandamus or prohibition depending upon the allegations in the petition.
Inapplicability of a Third-Party Complaint – The relief sought in a third-party complaint is contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief from
the third-party defendant in respect of the claim of the plaintiff against him. Accordingly, this relief cannot be granted because, in a declaratory relief,
the court is merely interpreting the terms of the contract (Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel).
Applicability of a Compulsory Counterclaim – A petition for declaratory relief may entertain a compulsory counterclaim as long as it is based on
or arising from the same transaction, subject matter of the petition.
Granting Affirmative Relief – General Rule: Affirmative reliefs as in ordinary civil actions are NOT GRANTED in declaratory petitions.
EXCEPTION: (Adlawan v. IAC) The Court has held that although the action is for a declaratory judgment but the allegations in the
complaints are sufficient to make out a case for specific performance or recovery of property with claims for damages, and the defendants DID NOT
RAISE AN ISSUE IN THE TRIAL COURT to challenge the remedy or form of the action availed of, the court can GRANT such affirmative relief as
may be warranted by the evidence.
No Executory Process as in Ordinary Civil Actions – This is because the judgment in a declaratory relief is confined either to an interpretation of
a deed or a declaration whether or not the petitioner has rights under the law. As a general principle, the judgment in a declaratory relief is said to
stand by itself and no executory process follows as of course. It is unlike the judgment in an ordinary civil action which is coercive in character and
enforceable by execution.
Jurisprudence, however, does not absolutely close the doors to an executory process in a petition for declaratory relief. (Example: [DBM
v. Manila’s Finest Retirees Association, Inc.] The case involved the Integrated National Police Retirees who, according to the Court, can no longer
afford protracted litigation, the Court, in what appears to be evidently an application of the principle of the liberal construction of the rules, declared
that the execution of judgments in a petition for declaratory relief is not necessarily indefensible since a special civil action is, after all, not
essentially different from an ordinary civil action, which is generally governed by Rule 1 to 56 of the Rules of Court, except that the former deals with
a special subject matter which makes necessary some special regulation. XXX The same rules governing ordinary civil suits MAY and DO APPLY to
special civil actions IF NOT INCONSISTENT with or if they may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special civil
actions.
Filing Before any Breach or Violation – 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(Section 1, Rule 63). It WILL NOT PROSPER when brought after a contract or a statute has
already been breached or violated (Ollada v. Central Bank of the Philippines). If there has already been a breach, the appropriate ordinary civil
action, not declaratory relief, should be filed. Hence, a petition for declaratory relief filed by one, who had been previously found to have already
violated the law subject of the petition, is improper (Quisumbing v. Garcia).
 However, when the breach occurs not before the filing of the petition for declaratory relief but after the action has been instituted and
before its final termination, it is submitted that the action need not be dismissed because IT MAY BE CONVERTED into an ordinary civil
action.
 Once converted into an ordinary action, the parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper (Sec. 6, Rule
63).
 The party desiring the conversion needs to argue the point and specify the ordinary action desired. The same must also be raised in the
trial court and NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (Martelino v. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation).
Justiciable Controversy
 In special civil actions for declaratory relief, the concept of a cause of action under ordinary civil actions does not strictly apply. The
reason for this exception is that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been NO ACTUAL BREACH of the instruments
involved or of rights arising thereunder. Nevertheless, a breach or violation should be IMPENDING, IMMINENT, or at least THREATENED
(Velarde v. Social Justice Society).
 The absence of a breach should not, however, be taken to mean that the petition need not involve a JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. The
Court laid down certain REQUIREMENTS for an action for declaratory relief before a trial court to prosper, viz:
a. There is a justiciable controversy;
b. The controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse;
c. The party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and
d. The issue invoked is ripe for judicial determination (Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. v. Republic).
 “It cannot be gainsaid that the E.O. would have an adverse effect on respondents. The closure of their bus terminals would mean, among
other things, the loss of income from the operation and/or rentals of stalls thereat. Precisely, respondents claim a deprivation of their
 constitutional right to property without due process of law. Respondents have thus amply demonstrated a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that [they have] sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of [the E.O.’s] enforcement. Consequently, the
established rule that the constitutionality of a law or administrative issuance can be challenged by one who will sustain a direct injury as a
result of its enforcement has been satisfied by respondents.” (MMDA v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.)
 “The controversy must be justiciable – definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.
In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the
other hand; that is, it must concern a real and not merely a theoretical question or issue.” (Human Security Act consolidated cases)
 The Court had always stressed that a person who impugns the validity of a statute “must have a PERSONAL and SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.”
 In PUBLIC SUITS – the plaintiff representing the general public, asserts a “public right” in assailing an allegedly illegal official action.
Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being
deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
SIMILAR REMEDIES:
I. Reformation of an Instrument – a remedy in equity where a written instrument already executed is allowed by law to be reformed or
construed to express or conform to the real intention of the parties
 An action for reformation is NOT one brought to reform a contract but to “reform the instrument” evidencing the contract.
 The instrument 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, FRAUD, INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, or ACCIDENT. (Art. 1359, Civil Code)
 A contract DOES NOT REFER to the instrument, deed or document but to the “meeting of the minds” (Art. 1305, Civil Code). Examples:
a. The parties have agreed on the area of the land subject of the sale. By an act of fraud of the seller who prepared the deed of
sale, a smaller area is indicated in the deed. Hence, there is nothing defective in the contract. The defect is found in the deed of
sale, which is the instrument. If an action for reformation is brought, it must be for the purpose of reforming the instrument.
b. When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of the instrument to disclose their real agreement, said instrument
may be reformed (Art. 1361, Civil Code).
c. An 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. 1364, Civil Code).
d. 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, Civil Code).
 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 the 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,
Civil Code). A contract where one party’s consent is vitiated is VOIDABLE or ANNULLABLE (Arts. 1330 and 1390 [2], Civil Code).
 Reformation of the instrument CANNOT be brought for any of the following:
a. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;
b. Wills; or
c. When the real agreement is void (Art. 1366, Civil Code).
II. CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP (Art. 1607, Civil Code) – has its origins in the substantive provisions of the law on sales. Under the law, a
CONTRACT OF SALE may be extinguished either by:
1. Legal Redemption (Art. 1619, Civil Code); or
– Also called retracto legal, is a statutory mandated redemption of a property previously sold.
– Examples:
a. 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, Civil Code).
b. The owners of adjoining lands shall have the right of redemption when a piece of rural land with an area of one hectare or
less is alienated (Art. 1621, Civil Code).
2. Conventional Redemption (Art. 1601, Civil Code) – Also called pacto de retro sale, is one that is NOT mandated by statute but one which
takes place because of the stipulation of the parties to the sale.
 Conventional redemption shall take place when the vendor reserves the right to repurchase the thing sold (Art. 1601, Civil Code).
 The period of redemption MAY BE FIXED by the parties which CANNOT EXCEED 10years from the date of the contract.
 In the ABSENCE of an express agreement, the redemption period shall be 4years from the date of the contract (Art. 1606, Civil
Code).
 Where the redemption is NOT MADE within the period agreed upon, in case the subject matter of the sale is REAL PROPERTY, Art.
1607 of the Civil Code 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.”
 The action brought to consolidate ownership is NOT for the purpose of consolidating 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. Article 1607
REQUIRES the filing of the petition to consolidate ownership because the law precludes the registration of the consolidated title
without a judicial order.
III. Quieting of Title (a Quasi in rem action) – is brought to remove a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein. The cloud is caused by:
a. any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding;
b. which appears to be valid or effective;
c. but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and
d. may be prejudicial to the title to real property sought to be quieted (Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. v. Bonifacio)
 May be brought as a preventive remedy to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein (Art. 476, Civil
Code)
 There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been
extinguished or terminated, or barred by extinctive prescription (Art. 478, Civil Code).
 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
equitable title to the property which is the subject matter of the action (Art. 477, Civil Code).
 In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named a defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests to the
obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a particular property but
which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut
off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgment therein is binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.
(Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. v. Bonifacio)
 The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to
the action (Heirs of Marcelino Doronio v. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio)
 Requisites for QUIETING OF TITLE: (Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. v. Bonifacio)
a. The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
b. 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 prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy
Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the absence of such legal or equitable title, there is
no cloud to be prevented or removed. (Mananquil v. Moico)