Rule 63. (1) Digest Erlinda Reyes V Hon. Ortiz (Dizon)

G.R. No.
137794 August 11, 2010
ERLINDA REYES and ROSEMARIE MATIENZO, Petitioners,

vs.
HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ, et. al., Respondents
The instant cases are consolidated Petitions for Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, and Prohibition, which
involved parcels of land in Tala Estate situated between Caloocan and Quezon City encompassing an
area of 7,007.9515 hectares.
FACTS:
In GR No. 137794, respondents Segundo Bautista and spouses Perl sought the ouster from the contested
lots of Erlinda Reyes, spouses Matienzo, and Sergio Abejero. Upon the filing of the first case against
spouses Matienzo and Biyaya Corporation with Samahan ng Maliliit na Magkakapitbahay (SAMAKABA),
of which petitioners are members, as intervenor, RTC issued a WPI on May 28, 1997 freezing all
ejectment cases pending in the MeTCs in QC and Caloocan. The second and third cases on ejectment
filed on June 25 and July 8 were commenced by spouses Perl against Reyes and Abejero, respectively.
The last two cases were consolidated. Reyes, in her answer, moved for the suspension of the
proceedings and/or for the dismissal of these cases citing the WPI issued by RTC. The MeTC, however,
did not entertain such motion and required Reyes to submit position paper.
RTC rendered a decision ordering Erlinda to vacate. On March 25, 2999, petitioners Reyes and Matienzo
filed 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 Matienzo
and Reyes 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 As to GR No. 149664, complaints were
filed against petitioners after Injunction order was issued on May 28, 1997. On July 28, 2006, however,
petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw and/or Dismiss Instant Petition following the issuance of the
decision of Annulment/ Reversion case rendering said case moot and academic.
Case for Petitioners: Petitioners 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. As to
the Caloocan City RTC, its desistance to heed the Injunction is unjustified and contrary to well-settled
jurisprudence.
Case for Respondents: 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. Hence, where the law or contract has already been breached prior to the filing of
the declaratory relief, courts can no longer assume jurisdiction since this action is not geared towards
the settling of issues arising from breach or violation of the rights and obligations of the parties under a
statute, deed, and contract, but rather it is intended to secure an authoritative statement for guidance
in their enforcement or compliance of the same.
ISSUE
Whether or not Declaratory Relief is the proper remedy
HELD:
NO.
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. Under this rule, only a person who is interested "under a deed, will, contract or
other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute or ordinance, may bring an action
to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a
declaration of his rights or duties thereunder." 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
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.

Rule 63. (1) Digest Erlinda Reyes V Hon. Ortiz (Dizon)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 63. (1) Digest Erlinda Reyes V Hon. Ortiz (Dizon)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Rule 63. (1) Digest Erlinda Reyes V Hon. Ortiz (Dizon)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

137794 August 11, 2010

ERLINDA REYES and ROSEMARIE MATIENZO, Petitioners,

Whether or not Declaratory Relief is the proper remedy

You might also like