DIGEST/ANA CHRISTEL ANGELES/ERLINDA REYES and ROSEMARIE MATIENZO v. HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ

 

ERLINDA REYES and ROSEMARIE MATIENZO v. HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ, 

 

FACTS:

 

The instant cases are consolidated Petitions for Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, and Prohibition. The subject matter of these cases are the parcels of land which are part of the Tala Estate, situated between the boundaries of Caloocan City and Quezon City.

 

 1^st case

On December 11, 1996, Respondent Segundo Bautista, registered owner of a parcel of land, filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership of Real Property with the RTC of Caloocan against the occupants, spouses Rene and Rosemarie Matienzo.

 

On December 27, 1996, a separate but related action was initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands before the Quezon City RTC, Branch 85. This was a complaint for Annulment of Title/Reversion against Biyaya Corporation and the Register of Deeds of the Cities of Pasig, Caloocan, and Quezon, the City of Manila, and the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority involving the Tala Estate.  The case sought to declare null and void the transfer certificates of title issued in the name of Biyaya Corporation, and all derivative titles emanating therefrom, and to revert the land as part of the patrimonial property of the State, and awarded to the actual occupants. One of the intervenors therein is Samahan ng Maliliit na Magkakapitbahay (SAMAKABA) of which petitioners Erlinda Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo are members.

 

On May 28, 1997, the Quezon City RTC in Annulment/Reversion case issued a Preliminary Injunction freezing all ejectment cases involving the Tala Estate pending in the MeTCs of Quezon City and Caloocan City.

 

Believing that the Injunction issued can be beneficial to them in the Recovery case, spouses Matienzo filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of the Recovery case but it was denied.

 

2^nd case

On June 25, 1997, spouses Bernard and Florencia Perl filed an ejectment complaint against Erlinda Reyes before the Caloocan City MeTC.

 

3^rd case

On July 8, 1997- spouses Perl filed an ejectment action against Sergio Abejero with Caloocan City MeTC.

 

The second and third cases were consolidated.

 

Erlinda Reyes moved for the suspension of the proceedings and/or for the dismissal of these cases citing the Injunction issued in the RTC of Quezon. The motion was not entertained. Eventually, the court issued a Decision ordering Erlinda to vacate the contested property.

 

The Recovery case and the Ejectment cases converged when petitioners Rosemarie Matienzo and Erlinda Reyes, joined on March 25, 1999 in filing directly with this Court the instant petition denominated as "Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, and Prohibition," mainly assailing the denial of their respective motions for suspension.

 

Petitioners asked that the proceedings in the Ejectment cases and the Recovery case be declared null and void for violating the Injunction order of the Quezon City RTC.  They specifically alleged that the MeTC’s refusal to suspend the Ejectment cases despite the Injunction order is tantamount or amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.

 

Respondent Segundo Bautista contends that petitioners resorted to a wrong remedy. He argues that the action for declaratory relief can only prosper if the statute, deed, or contract has not been violated. Since the Injunction order of the Quezon City RTC had already been violated before the filing of this instant petition, resort to Rule 63 of the Rules of Court would not lie. 

 

ISSUE:

 

Whether Declaratory Relief is a proper remedy

 

RULING:

 

No. Declaratory Relief is not a proper remedy .

 

Section 1 of Rule 63 provides:

 

SECTION 1. Who may file petition. — 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 may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.

An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.

 

The foregoing section can be dissected into two parts. The first paragraph concerns declaratory relief, which has been defined as a special civil action by any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument or whose rights are affected by a statute, ordinance, executive order or regulation to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The second paragraph pertains to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument; (2) an action to quiet title; and (3) an action to consolidate ownership in a sale with a right to repurchase

 

The first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 63 enumerates the subject matter to be inquired upon in a declaratory relief namely, deed, will, contract or other written instrument, a statute, executive order or regulation, or any government regulation. This means that the subject matter must refer to a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or to a statute or ordinance, to warrant declaratory relief. Any other matter not mentioned therein is deemed excluded. This is under the principle of expressio unius est exclussio alterius.

 

In a recent ruling of this Court, it was emphasized that a petition for declaratory relief cannot properly have a court decision as its subject matter for the simple reason that 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 the expedient prescribed by Rule 66 [now Rule 64].

 

The proper remedy that petitioner Erlinda Reyes could have utilized from the denial of her motion to suspend proceedings in the Caloocan City MeTC was to file a motion for reconsideration and, if it is denied, to file a petition for certiorari before the RTC pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, petitioner Matienzo should have filed a special civil action on certiorari also under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals from the denial of her motion by the Caloocan City RTC.The necessity of filing the petition to the RTC in the case of Erlinda Reyes and to the Court of Appeals in the case of Matienzo is dictated by the principle of the hierarchy of courts.

 

Bereft of merit too is petitioners argument that the Caloocan City MeTC cannot disregard the injunction order of the Quezon City RTC hearing the Annulment/Reversion case. The established rule is that a pending civil action for ownership such as annulment of title shall not ipso facto suspend an ejectment proceeding. The Court explained that the rationale for this is that in an ejectment case, the issue is possession, while in an annulment case the issue is ownership. In fact, an ejectment case can be tried apart from an annulment case.