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 theobligation shall be the basis of
payment

Petitioners later demanded payment of VAT and 73%

adjusted rentals pursuant to the foregoing provisions.
Respondent refused and 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 monthsthat 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.

The factual antecedents, as narrated by the trial court, are as follows.

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the

United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage

was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady

Kimberly V. Orbecido.
 In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing along their son

Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been

naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained

a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her

child by him currently live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel,

California.

Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry

invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed.

Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein

petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought

reconsideration but it was denied.

In this petition, the OSG raises a pure question of law:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26
OF THE FAMILY CODE[4]

The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not

applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that

is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien. The proper

remedy, according to the OSG, is to file a petition for annulment or for legal
separation.[5]Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs respondents

situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial

determination.[6]

For his part, respondent admits that Article 26 is not directly applicable to his case

but insists that when his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree which

capacitated her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by operation of law pursuant

to Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.[7]

At the outset, we note that the petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial

court actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. In this connection,

Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides:

RULE 63
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES

Section 1. Who may file petitionAny 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 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.
...

The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a justiciable

controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are

adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy;

and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination.[8]

 This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a

marriage between two Filipino citizens where one later acquired alien citizenship,

obtained a divorce decree, and remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests of the

parties are also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty to

protect the institution of marriage while respondent, a private citizen, insists on a

declaration of his capacity to remarry. Respondent, praying for relief, has legal

interest in the controversy. The issue raised is also ripe for judicial determination

inasmuch as when respondent remarries, litigation ensues and puts into question

the validity of his second marriage.

Coming now to the substantive issue, does Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family

Code apply to the case of respondent? Necessarily, we must dwell on how this

provision had come about in the first place, and what was the intent of the

legislators in its enactment?

Carmen Danao Malana, Maria Danao Acorda, Evelyn Danao, Fermina Danao, Leticia Danao
And Leonora Danao, The Last Twoare Represented Herein By Their Attorney-In-Fact, Maria
Danao Acorda,
- Versus -
Benigno Tappa, Jerry Reyna, Saturnino Cambri And Spouses Francisco And Maria Ligutan
G.R. No. 18130; September 17, 2009

FACTS:

Petitioners filed before the RTC their Complaint for Reivindicacion, Quieting of Title, and Damages
against respondents alleging that they are the owners of a parcel of land situated
in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Petitioners inherited the subject property from Anastacio Danao
(Anastacio), who died intestate. During the lifetime of Anastacio, he had allowed Consuelo Pauig to
build on and occupy the southern portion of the subject property. Anastacio and Consuelo agreed
that the latter would vacate the said land at any time that Anastacio and his heirs might need it.

Petitioners claimed that respondents, Consuelos family members, continued to occupy the subject
property even after her death, already building their residences thereon using permanent
materials. Petitioners also learned that respondents were claiming ownership over the subject
property. Averring that they already needed it, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate the
same. Respondents, however, refused to heed petitioners demand.

Petitioners referred their land dispute with respondents to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay
Annafunan West for conciliation. During the conciliation proceedings, respondents asserted that
they owned the subject property and presented documents ostensibly supporting their claim of
ownership. According to petitioners, respondents documents were highly dubious, falsified, and
incapable of proving the latters claim of ownership over the subject property; nevertheless, they
created a cloud upon petitioners title to the property. Thus, petitioners were compelled to file
before the RTC a Complaint to remove such cloud from their title. However, such complaint was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC referred to Republic Act No. 7691, amending Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which vests the
RTC with jurisdiction over real actions, where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds P20,000.00. It found that the subject property had a value of less than P20,000.00;
hence, petitioners action to recover the same was outside the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned RTC Order dismissing their
Complaint. They argued that their principal cause of action was for quieting of title; the accion
reivindicacion was included merely to enable them to seek complete relief from
respondents. Petitioners Complaint should not have been dismissed, since Section 1, Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court states that an action to quiet title falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

In an Order dated 30 May 2007, the RTC denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. It reasoned
that an action to quiet title is a real action. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691, it is the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over real actions where the assessed value of
real property does not exceed P20,000.00. Since the assessed value of subject property
was P410.00, the real action involving the same was outside the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Petitioners filed another pleading, simply designated as Motion, in which they prayed that the RTC
Orders dated 4 May 2007 and 30 May 2007, dismissing their Complaint, be set aside. They
reiterated their earlier argument that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court states that an action
to quiet title falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. They also contended that there was no
obstacle to their joining the two causes of action, i.e., quieting of title and reivindicacion, in a single
Complaint. And even if the two causes of action could not be joined, petitioners maintained that the
misjoinder of said causes of action was not a ground for the dismissal of their Complaint.

The RTC issued an Order dated 31 October 2007 denying petitioners Motion. It clarified that their
Complaint was dismissed, not on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action, but for lack of
jurisdiction. The RTC dissected Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which 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 RTC differentiated between the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court. The first paragraph refers to an action for declaratory relief, which should be
brought before the RTC. The second paragraph, however, refers to a different set of remedies,
which includes an action to quiet title to real property. The second paragraph must be read in
relation to Republic Act No. 7691, which vests the MTC with jurisdiction over real actions, where
the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila
and P20,000.00 in all other places.

Hence, the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or Rule 63, Section 1 (declaratory relief) is properly invoked in the instant case.

HELD:

An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a
contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order,
a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and
determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties
rights or duties thereunder.

As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration No. 02-
48386 is only P410.00; therefore, petitioners Complaint involving title to and possession of the said
property is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC

Furthermore, an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of
the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an action for
declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties
under a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance
therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained
only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to which it refers. A petition for
declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the state
where another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for a form of action that will
set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a
commission of wrongs.

Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for
declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a
court has no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been
infringed or transgressed before the institution of the action.
In the present case, petitioners Complaint for quieting of title was filed after petitioners already
demanded and respondents refused to vacate the subject property. In fact, said Complaint was filed
only subsequent to the latters express claim of ownership over the subject property before
the Lupong Tagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners title.

Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already been deprived of the
possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion
publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. An accion publiciana is
a suit for the recovery of possession, filed one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or
from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. An accion reivindicatoria is a suit that has
for its object ones recovery of possession over the real property as owner.

Petitioners Complaint contained sufficient allegations for an accion reivindicatoria. Jurisdiction over
such an action would depend on the value of the property involved. Given that the subject property
herein is valued only at P410.00, then the MTC, not the RTC, has jurisdiction over an action to
recover the same. The RTC, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing,
without prejudice, petitioners Complaint in Civil Case No. 6868 for lack of jurisdiction.

SPOUSES SABITSANA VS MUERTEGUI

G.R. No. 181359/5 August 2013 J. DEL CASTILLO
Topic: Declaratory Relief
Doctrine: Declaratory relief is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation; hence, RTC has
jurisdiction.
Facts: Petitioner Clemencio Sabitsana, lawyer, was the counsel of Respondents. The dispute
involved a parcel of land bought by Respondent Juanito by virtue of a not notarized deed of sale
from Garcia. Juanitos father and his brother Domingo, also respondent herein, took actual
possession of the land. Later on, Garcia sold the same land to petitioner, this time, through a
notarized deed of sale. When respondents father passed away, the heirs applied for the
registration and coverage of the lot under Public Land Act or CA No. 141. P opposed the
application, claiming as a true owner of the lot. Respondents filed for quieting of title and
preliminary injunction against Ps, Clemencio and his wife, Rosario, claiming that they bought the
land in bad faith and are exercising possession and ownership of the same, which act thus
constitute cloud over the title. RTC and CA ruled in favour of Rs.
Issue: Whether RTC has jurisction over the declaratory relief. (Petitioners contention: should be
based on assessed value of the property; hence, jurisdiction should only be first level court-No!)
Decision: YES, petition dismissed. The RTC has jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of title. On
the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the Rules that an action for quieting of title may be
instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the real property in dispute. Under
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom may be brought in the appropriate RTC. Additional: Both the trial court and the CA
are, however, wrong in applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code. That provision does not apply to
sales involving unregistered land. Act No. 3344 applies to sale of unregistered lands. What
applies in this case is Act No. 3344, as amended, which provides for the system of recording
of transactions over unregistered real estate. Act No. 3344 expressly declares that any
registration made shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better right. The question to
be resolved therefore is: who between petitioners and respondent has a better right to the
disputed lot? Respondent has a better right to the lot since P purchaser in bad faith.