PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR VS.

CA
G.R. No. 175064; September 18, 2009
600 SCRA 569

CHICO-NAZARIO
FACTS:

The property subject of the instant case is a parcel of land, known as Plaza Rizal, situated within the territory of the City of Naga.
Plaza Rizal is located in front of the old provincial capitol building, where the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur used to have its seat, at
the time when the then Municipality of Naga was still the provincial capital. Republic Act No. 305 took effect and, by virtue thereof, the
Municipality of Naga was converted into the City of Naga. Subsequently, RA No. 1336 was approved, transferring the site of the provincial
capitol of Camarines Sur from the City of Naga to the barrio of Palestina, Municipality of Pili. The Municipality of Pili was also named as the new
provincial capital.

Sometime in 1997, City of Naga filed a complaint for Declaratory Relief and/ Quieting of Title against Camarines Sur. City of Naga
alleged that CamSur possessed and claimed ownership of Plaza Rizal by virtue of a Tax declaration over said property in the name of the
province. As a result, Camarines Sur had long exercised administrative control and management of Plaza Rizal, to the exclusion of the City of
Naga. The situation had created a conflict of interest between the parties herein and had generated animosities among their respective officials.
City of Naga seeks a declaration that the administrative control and management of Plaza Rizal should be vested in it given that the said
property is within its territorial jurisdiction invoking Sec. 2, Art. I of R.A. 305 or the Charter of Naga City.

CamSur filed an answer with Motion to Dismiss alleging that the complaint lacked factual and legal basis. It further alleged that the
remedy of Declaratory Relief was inappropriate because there was no justiciable controversy since ownership of said subject belongs to CamSur
and it has been under its control and supervision since time immemorial. Also, the remedy of quieting of title was inappropriate since Naga City
had no equitable title to Plaza Rizal that needed protection. Motion to dismiss was denied because the legal issues required evidentiary matters
that can only be settled in a full-blown trial.

RTC rendered a decision in favor of City of Naga. Court saidx x x Since [Section 2, Article I] of [Republic Act No.] 305 defines the
territory of [the City of] Naga and Plaza Rizal is within its territorial jurisdiction, ergo, it is the City [of Naga] who has the right of
administrative control and management of Plaza Rizal.

Camarines Sur filed with the Court vis--vis a petition for review on Certiorari after having denied its MR. RTC referred the case to the
Court of Appeals. SIDE ISSUE: Court of Appeals mistook the petition for review on Certiorari (Rule 45) as a petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) and
the CA denied the petition by saying that Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal and that the case would still
fail because there was no grave abuse of discretion. (You may choose to ignore this, OMG CA!)

CamSur now then filed the instant petition for Certiorai (Rule 65) arguing that the Court of Appeals went beyond its authority and
gravely abused its discretion when it treated and resolved the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65, which must allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, and which cannot be made a substitute for a
lost appeal. Camarines Sur insists that what it filed was a Petition under Rule 45, which raised all reversible errors committed by the RTC and
presented all questions of laws.

In the same petition CamSur pleads for this Court to decide on the questions of law raised in the dismissed petition. CamSur alleges
that the filing of the Complaint for Declaratory Relief and/or Quieting of Title was improper as it was hinged on a pretended controversy.
Essentially, the complaint of the City of Naga did not show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on one side, and a denial thereof,
on the other.

ISSUE: WON the petition for Declaratory relief is proper.

HELD:
YES, the City of Naga properly resorted to the filing of an action for declaratory relief. 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 provisions in an instrument or statute . In the instant
case, the controversy concerns the construction of the provisions of Republic Act No. 305 or the Charter of the City of Naga. Specifically, the
City of Naga seeks an interpretation of Section 2, Article I of its Charter, as well as a declaration of the rights of the parties to this case. The
requisites of an action for declaratory relief are:
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy between persons whose interests are adverse;
(2) the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and
(3) the issue is ripe for judicial determination

The instant case falls under the requisites: First, the interests of the City of Naga and Camarines Sur in this case are adverse. The assertion by
the City of Naga of a superior right to the administrative control and management of Plaza Rizal, because said property of the public domain is
within its territorial jurisdiction, is clearly antagonistic to and inconsistent with the insistence of Camarines Sur. Second, City of Naga asserted as
a result of CamSurs ownership, former could not introduce improvements on Plaza Rizal; its constituents were denied adequate use of said
property, since Camarines Sur required that the latters permission must first be sought for the use of the same; and it was still Camarines Sur
that was able to continuously use Plaza Rizal for its own programs and projects. Therefore, City of Naga undoubtedly has a legal interest in the
controversy because Plaza Rizal is within its jurisdiction. Lastly, the issue is ripe for determination in view of the conflicting interest of the
parties to which litigation is inevitable and no adequate relief is available in any other form or proceeding.

EUFEMIA ALMEDA and ROMEL ALMEDA, petitioners,

vs.
BATHALA MARKETING INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent.

G.R. No. 150806 January 28, 2008

NACHURA

Facts: In May 1997, respondent Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc. (lessee) entered into a contract of lease with petitioners (lessors). Provisions
of the contract of lease include:

6th - Lessee shall pay an increased rent if there is any new tax imposed on the property

7th - In case of supervening extraordinary inflation or devaluation of the PHP, the value of PHP at the time of the establishment of the obligation
shall be the basis of payment

Petitioners later demanded payment of VAT and 73% adjustedrentals pursuant to the foregoing provisions. Respondent refusedand filed an
action for declaratory relief. Petitioners filed an action for ejectment.

Issue: Whether or not declaratory relief is proper.

Held: YES. Petitioners insist that respondent was already in breach of the contract when the petition was filed, thus, respondent is barred from
filing an action for declaratory relief. However, after petitioners demanded payment of adjusted rentals and in the months that followed,
respondent complied with the terms and conditions set forth in their contract of lease by paying the rentals stipulated therein. Respondent
religiously fulfilled its obligations to petitioners even during the pendency of the present suit. There is no showing that respondent committed
an act constituting a breach of the subject contract of lease. Thus, respondent is not barred from instituting before the trial court the petition
for declaratory relief.

Petitioners further claim that the instant petition is not proper because a separate action for rescission, ejectment and damages had been
commenced before another court; thus, the construction of the subject contractual provisions should be ventilated in the same forum.

As a rule, the petition for declaratory relief should be dismissed in view of the pendency of a separate action for unlawful detainer. In this case,
however, the trial court had not yet resolved the rescission/ejectment case during the pendency of the declaratory relief petition. In fact, the
trial court, where the rescission case was on appeal, initiated the suspension of the proceedings pending the resolution of the action for
declaratory relief.