CASE: Reyes vs. Ortiz, GR No. 137794, August 11, 2010. require a position paper instead.

require a position paper instead. The court’s Decision ordered Reyes to vacate the
contested property.
FACTS: The instant cases are consolidated Petitions for Declaratory Relief, Certiorari
and Prohibition. In G.R. No. 137794 (1st case), petitioners Reyes et. al seek to The Recovery and Ejectment cases were joined when petitioners Matienzo and Reyes
declare null and void the proceedings in an ejectment case before MeTC, Caloocan filed the instant petition as Declaratory Relief, Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the
and another case for Recovery of Possession and Ownership before RTC, Caloocan. denial of their respective motions for suspension.
On one hand, petitioners Sps. Embores et. al in G.R. No. 149664 (2nd case) seek to
nullify of four ejectment proceedings in different MTC/RTC branches in Caloocan. By This case is docketed as G.R. No. 137794. During the pendency of this case, certain
court resolution the 2nd case was terminated on Aug. 30, 2006. events supervened when the Ejectment cases ran their course and Reyes appealed
the MeTC decision to the RTC; meanwhile, Sps. Perl moved for execution pending
The parcels of land which are the subject matter of these cases are part of the TALA appeal which was granted and accordingly a writ of execution was issued by the RTC.
ESTATE, situated between the boundaries of Caloocan City and Quezon City and Thus, Reyes et. al moved for suspension of the RTC proceedings to the SC. The
encompassing an area of about 7,007.9515 hectares. Court issued TRO for the implementation of the writ.

G.R. No. 137794 G.R. No. 149664

Sps. Bautista, Sps. Perl sought the ouster from the contested lots of Erlinda Reyes, This case emanated from four (4) distinct ejectment complainst filed against
Sps. Matienzo and Sergio Abejero, who are occupants of separate homelots in petitioners Corazon Laurente, Sps. Alberto and Lourdes Embores, Sps. Roberto and
Camarin. The first case was initiated by Segundo Bautista, as the registered owner, Evelyn Palad, and Dennis Henosa. Petitioners were sought to be evicted in Camarin
he filed a complaint against land occupants Sps. Matienzo in RTC, Caloocan and are members of Alyansa ng Mga Naninirahan Sa Tala Friar Lands (ALNATFRAL).
(RECOVERY CASE). They are also intervenors in the Reversion Case. These cases were filed prior to the
issuance of Injunction Order by the QC-RTC. Petitioners separately invoked the said
Shortly thereafter, a separate but related action for annulment of title/reversion, was injunction for the dismissal of the current ejectment cases against them. They directly
initiated by the Republic (Rep: Dir. of Lands) on Dec. 27, 1996 against Biyaya Corp filed their petitions with the SC.
and RD of Cities Pasig, Caloocan and Quezon, the City of Manila and Admin of LRA
involving the TALA Estate before QC-RTC. The case sought to declare the transfer On April 28, 2003, this Court resolved to consolidate the two cases. Since the first
titles issued by Biyaya Corp. null and void; revert the patrimonial portions of the case was withdrawn, only the issues in the second case remain to be resolved.
property to the State and the same be awarded to actual occupants
(ANNULMENT/REVERSION CASE). One of the intervenors were petitioners Erlinda ARGUMENT/s:
Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo, members of Samahan ng Maliliit na
Magkakapitbahay (SAMAKABA). The QC-RTC issued Preliminary Injunction freezing As to petitioner: (1) The refusal of the Caloocal’s MeTC and RTC to suspend the
all ejectment cases in the MeTCs of QC involving TALA Estate. Believing the said Ejectment cases despite the Injunction is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion
Injunction beneficial to them, Sps. Matienzo filed a motion to suspend the proceedings amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; if so, the Decision in the Ejectment and
of the Recovery Case which was denied; likewise, the MR was denied. Trial on merits Recovery cases must be annulled. (2) The petition is mainly for Declaratory Relief.
started on Dec. 2, 1998.
As to respondent: The petition for relief is not a proper remedy for the following
The second case, an ejectment case, was filed by Sps. Bernard and Florencia Perl reasons: (1) the action for petition for relief will only prosper if the statute, deed or
against Reyes before MeTC, Caloocan. Thereafter, Sps. Perl also filed an ejectment contract has not been violated but in this case, the violation of the Injunction Order
case against Sergio Abejero. These two cases were consolidated (EJECTMENT has already been made prior to the filing of the petition; thus, to rule on the petition
CASES), now would only serve as an authoritative guidance for its implementation. (2)
petitioners recourse was merely a ploy to substitute the filing of certiorari under Rule
Reyes, in her Answer and during Preliminary Conference, moved for 65 which 60-day period already lapsed. (3) the petition was directly filed with SC in
suspension/dismissal of these cases citing the Injuction case; the court ignored and violation of Hierarchy of Courts; it should have been filed with the CA first. (4)
Caloocan RTC did not err in not suspending the Recovery Case since QC-RTC is a certiorari before the RTC pursuant to Rule 65 of ROC; Whereas, the proper remedy of
co-equal court. Matienzo should have been to file a special civil action on certiorari also under Rule
65 with CA from the denial of her motion by the Caloocan RTC. The necessity of filing
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition is one for Declaratory Relief under Section 1 of the petition to the RTC in the case of Erlinda Reyes and to the Court of Appeals in the
Rule 63; whether or not the petition should be granted as a proper remedy for the case of Matienzo is dictated by the principle of the hierarchy of courts. Both petitions
lower court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for suspension of the Ejectment case while must be filed within 60 days from receipt or notice of denial of the motion as provided
an Injunction Order was being enforced in another court. under Section 4, Rule 65. This procedural faux pas proves fatal. The case not being
one of exceptional circumstance to warrant the Supreme Court to exercise primary
HELD: Section 1, Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides: jurisdiction.

SECTION 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested under a deed, will, Matienzo obviously filed the declaratory relief as a substitute for certiorari, a remedy
contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, she lost by inaction. To recall, Matienzo received a copy of the Order of denial for her
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, motion for reconsideration on June 9, 1998 but it was only on March 25, 1999 that she
before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial assailed the said order via this petition.
Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. The Caloocan City RTC and MeTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion upon
denying petitioners motion. It is clear from its Order, that the preliminary injunction was
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove addressed to the MTC of QC and Caloocan City; not with the Caloocan City RTC. The
clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, order merely mentions the Caloocan City MeTCs. Nothing more. But more
may be brought under this Rule. importantly, the Quezon City RTC could not have validly enjoined the Caloocan City
RTC without violating the doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by
The section can be dissected in two parts. The first paragraph concerns declaratory injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate
relief, which has been defined as a special civil action by any person interested under jurisdiction.
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 Hence, petitioners’ posture that the Ejectment cases should be suspended due to the
construction or validity arising under the instrument, executive order or regulation, or pendency of the Annulment/Reversion case is not meritorious.
statute and for declaration of rights and duties thereunder. The second paragraph
pertains to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument; (2) an action to quiet title; WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The
and (3) an action to consolidate ownership in a sale with a right to repurchase. Temporary Restraining Order dated October 25, 2000 issued by this Court is LIFTED.

In Lerum v. Cruz (1950), the Supreme Court held that the subject matter of the petition
for relief must only refer to a deed, will, contract or other written instrument or to a
statute or ordinance. Any other matter not mentioned therein is deemed excluded.
Expressio unius est exclussio alterius. The Court further ruled in succeeding
jurisprudence that a Judge’s query or a court decision is not a proper subject matter of
a petition for relief.

In this case, petitioners Reyes and Matienzo assailed via Declaratory Relief under
Rule 63 of ROC, the orders denying their motions to suspend proceedings. This
cannot be countenanced since a court order is not a proper subject matter of a petition
for Declaratory Relief.

The proper remedy of Erlinda Reyes from the denial of a motion before the Caloocan
MeTC was to file a motion for reconsideration and, if it is denied, to file a petition for