CIV PRO Digest Template

ULE 63: DECLARATORY RELIEF
G.R. NO. 174129 July 5, 2010
HONESTO V. FERRER, JR., and ROMEO E. ESPERA, Petitioners,

vs.
Mayor SULPICIO S. ROCO, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of Naga City, Sangguniang Panglungsod
of the City of Naga, and Peñafrancia Memorial Park Corporation, Respondents.
PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45
DOCTRINE: It is settled that the requisites of an action for declaratory relief are: (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 documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require
judicial construction; (3) there must have been no breach of the documents 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.
FACTS:
1. San Andres, Ocampo, Vargas, Ferrer, Jr., Peralta, Sierra, delos Santos, Tan, Sese, and Espera
filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or Injunction with prayer for TRO questioning (1)
Resolution No. 2000-263; (2) Resolution No. 2000-354; and (3) Ordinance No. 2000-059 issued by
the respondents Mayor Roco, Jr. and the members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Naga City.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-263
BE IT RESOLVED, x x x to approve the application of Mr. Obiedo of ARE Square Realty

Development Corporation for Preliminary Approval for Locational Clearance (PALC) for a First
Class Memorial Park x x x.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-354
BE IT RESOLVED, x x x to approve the application for Development Permit (DP) of Mr. Obiedo x
x x to develop the Eternal Gardens Memorial Park, subject to the following conditions and
compliance of all existing laws, ordinances, rules and regulations and further
favorably endorsing the same to the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board (HLURB) for
appropriate action.
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-059
x x x SECTION 3. – the operation and maintenance of the private memorial park-type cemetery
established pursuant to this Ordinance shall be subject to the provisions of the cemetery law and/or
other pertinent laws as well as rules and regulations promulgated or as may be promulgated by the
Municipal Board x x x.
2. Respondents filed a MTD for lack of jurisdiction.

RTC: DISMISSED the petition. RTC found that prayer of petitioners was premature as the questioned
resolutions and ordinance were merely promulgated to pave the way for the endorsement of the application
of the private respondent to the HLURB. It recognized that the HLURB is the entity which will decide whether
the application of the private respondent will be granted or not.
CA: AFFIRMED in toto the RTC. Indeed, the doctrine of administrative remedies requires that resort be
first made to the administrative authorities in cases falling under their jurisdiction to allow them to carry out
their functions and discharge their liabilities within the specialized areas of their competence. Clearly, the
filing of the petition for declaratory relief with the trial court had no basis, as there can be no issue ripe for
judicial determination when the matter is within the primary jurisdiction of an administrative agency, the
HLURB.
ISSUE/S: W/N THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IS PROPER IN THIS CASE
HELD: NO.
Declaratory relief is defined as 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 the provisions in an instrument or statute.
It is settled that the requisites of an action for declaratory relief are: (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 documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction; (3) there must have been no breach of the documents 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.
In this case, the issue raised by petitioners is clearly not yet ripe for judicial determination. Nowhere
in the assailed resolutions and ordinance does it show that the public respondents acted on private
respondent’s application with finality. What appears therefrom is that the application of private respondent
for development permit has been endorsed to the HLURB for appropriate action, the latter being the sole
regulatory body for housing and land development.
WHEREFORE, the April 21, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its August 9, 2006 Resolution are
hereby AFFIRMED.

CIV PRO Digest Template

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIV PRO Digest Template

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIV PRO Digest Template

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ULE 63: DECLARATORY RELIEF

G.R. NO. 174129 July 5, 2010

HONESTO V. FERRER, JR., and ROMEO E. ESPERA, Petitioners,

PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45

RESOLUTION NO. 2000-263

BE IT RESOLVED, x x x to approve the application of Mr. Obiedo of ARE Square Realty

RESOLUTION NO. 2000-354

ORDINANCE NO. 2000-059

2. Respondents filed a MTD for lack of jurisdiction.

You might also like