Special Civil ActionsPreliminaries

Types of civil actions:1. Ordinary civil action (OCA)2. Special civil action (SCA)

Legal Basis:Sec.3(a), Rule 1, Rules of Court – these rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings.

(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.

A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.

Distinction:Note: The fact that an action is subject to special rules other than those applicable to ordinary civil actions is what makes a civil action special.

1. As to cause of action –In ordinary civil action, the defendant must have performed an act or omission in violation of the rights of another. The cause of action as defined and required of an OCA finds no application to SCA.

Example:

SCA of declaratory relief – is brought before there is any breach or violation of a deed, will, contract, statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation.

Interpleader – the plaintiff may file a complaint even if he has sustained no actual transgression of his rights. In fact the plaintiff in this SCA has no interest in the subject matter of the action. This is not so in an OCA.

2. As to venueOCA – venue is determined either by: Personal action – the residence of the

parties, at the election of the plaintiff Real action – the location of the property

SCA – the above rule does not apply in SCA.Example: Quo warranto – venue is:

where the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals sits without taking consideration of residence of the parties

Lodged with the RTC, here the RTC merely looks into the residence of the respondent, not that of the petitioner.

3. As to Court’s jurisdiction-OCA – jurisdiction is determined or depends upon the jurisdictional amount or nature of the action involved as provided by BP 129, as amended. In which case, OCA may be initially filed in the RTC or MTC.

SCA – there are special civil actions which can only be filed in a MTC like the actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. There are also SCA which cannot be commenced in the

MTC of which are the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

SCA under the rules are the following:1. Interpleader (Rule 62)2. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

(Rule 63)3. Review of Judgment and final orders or

resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit (Rule 64)

4. Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (Rule 65)

5. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)6. Expropriation (Rule 67)7. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage

(Rule 68)8. Partition (Rule 69)9. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

(Rule 70)10. Contempt (rule 71)

Initiated by filing of a PETITION

Initiated by filing a Complaint

1. Declaratory Relief and other similar remedies (Rule 63)

1. Interpleader (rule 62)

2. Review of judgment and final orders or resoultions of COMELEC and COA (rule 63)

2. Expropriation (rule 67)

3. Certiorari, Prohibition and mandamus

3. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage

4. Quo warranto 4. partition

5. Contempt 5. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer

RULE 62 – Interpleader

Interpleader, define (bar 1998) – Interpleader is a form of action originally developed under equity jurisprudence. Under our jurisdiction it is a special civil action. It allows a plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts.

When Interpleader proper (sec.1, Rule 62)A person (plaintiff), against whom two conflicting claims are made upon the same subject matter and over which he claims no interest, or if he has interest at all, such interest is not disputed by the claimants, may file a special civil action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves.

Requisites for interpleader:1. There must be two or more claimants with

conflicting interest to a property in the custody or possession of the plaintiff

2. The plaintiff in an action for interpleader has no interest/claim upon the subject matter of the adverse claim, or if he has an interest at all, such interest is not disputed by the claimiants.

3. Subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and the same.

Purpose: afforded to protect a person not against

double liability but against double vexation in respect of one liability.

Distinguish from Intervention –Interpleader Intervention

1.A special civil action, independent and noriginal

1. Accessory, ancillary and depends upon the existence of the main action

2. Commence by filing a complaint

2. Commenced by filing a motion to intervene

3. Filed by a person who has no interest in the subject matter of the action or if he has an interest, the same is not disputed by the claimants.

3. Filed by a person who has a legal interest in any of the following:

Subject matter of litigation

Success of either of the parties

Success of both of the parties

He may be adversely affected by the disposition or distribution of property in the judgment

4. Defendants are brought into the action only because they are impleaded as such in the complaint

4. If a complaint-in-intervention is filed, the defendants are already parties to the main action not because of the intervention but because of the original suit.

Vda. De Camilo vs Arcamo – L-15653, 9-29-1961Interpleader will not lie when 2 defendants has separate and distinct adverse claim. And there being no conflicting claims against the respondent, a complaint of interpleader may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

Facts: X and Y (petitioners) are in peaceful, open and adverse possession of two different parcels of foreshore lands of different areas, adjoining each other, situated in Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur. X and Y built their respective commercial building on their respective land property. However, a fire razed their building. Here comes A and B (respondents) who takes possession and entered into the subject land. Respondents constructed a building of their own. The building was so built that the lands previously occupied by the petitioners (X and Y) were encroached upon.

Petitioners respectively filed an action for forcible entry against respondent with the court. Both petitioners prayed that respondent should vacate the portion of their respective property which was encroached upon when they erected their building.

While the two cases were pending, respondent filed a complaint for interpleader alleging that the X and Y has conflicting interest, since they all claimed to be entitled to the possession of the lot in question and they (respondents) could not determine without hazard to themselves who of defendants was entitled to the possession.

Issue: whether the action for interpleader will prosper?

Ruling: the action for interpleader will not prosper. Petitioners did not have any conflicting claims against respondent. Their respective claim was separate and distinct from each other. Petitioner claimed possession

of two different parcels of land of different areas, adjoining each other. They only wanted the respondent to vacate that portion of their respective property which was encroached upon by them when they (respondentst) erected their building. Hence, absence of the requirements for action of interpleader, the compliant of interpleader may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

Wack-Wack Golf vs Lee Won – L-23851 – 3-26-1976Facts: Wack Wack Golf & Country Club Inc., operating under Philippine laws, filed a complaint to compel Lee and Tan (claimants) to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims upon the ownership of its membership fee certificates 201. The complaint further alleged that Lee claims ownership of the subject matter by virtue of decision rendered in a civil case 26044 of the CFI Manila and that Tan claims to be a lawful owner of its aforesaid membership fee certificate 201 by virtue of membership fee certificate 201-serial no. 1199 issued to him.

Defendants filed their separate motion to dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action and bar by prescription.

Issue: whether or not the complaint to interplead will prosper?

Ruling: The interpleader will not prosper. It has been held that an action of interpleader is too late when filed after judgment has been rendered against him in favor of one of the contending parties, especially where he

(plaintiff) he had prior notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of judgment and neglected the opportunity to implead the adverse claimants. Because once judgment is obtained against him by one claimant he becomes liable to the latter.

Moreover, a successful litigant cannot later be impleaded by his defeated adversary in an interpleader suit and compelled to prove his claim anew against other adverse claimants, as that would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment.

In the case at bar, it was only after the final judgment was rendered in civil case 26044 against the corporation that the remedy of interpleader was invoked by it. Hence, action of interpleader will not prosper.

RCBC vs METROCAN – GR no. 127913 – 9-13-2001Facts: METROCAN is the lessee of the property from LEYCON, lessor, which property is subject to the contract of mortgage entered into between RCBC and LEYCON.

METROCAN filed the interpleader action (Civil Case No. 4398-V-94) because it was unsure which between LEYCON and RCBC was entitled to receive the payment of monthly rentals on the subject property. LEYCON was claiming payment of the rentals as lessor of the property while RCBC was making a demand by virtue of the consolidation of the title of the property in its name.

Prior to the action of interpleader, LEYCON filed an action for Unlawful Detainer against

METROCAN docket as civil case no. 6202. In said civil case, the court dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer in view of an amicable settlement they entered and ordered METROCAN to pay LEYCON the rentals.

Comes now METROCAN moving for the dismissal of the interpleader action (civil case no. 4398-V-94) because there is no need to pursue such cause of action because it is already moot and academic.

RCBC on the other hand wants to prove his claim in the interpleader action filed, thus, compelling METROCAN to pursue the interpleader case.

Issue: whether or not the interpleader case should continue?

Ruling: the interpleader case should no longer continue. the reason for the interpleader action ceased when the MeTC rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 6202 whereby the court directed METROCAN to pay LEYCON "whatever rentals due on the subject premises x x x." While RCBC, not being a party to Civil Case No. 6202, could not be bound by the judgment therein, METROCAN is bound by the MeTC decision. When the decision in Civil Case No. 6202 became final and executory, METROCAN has no other alternative left but to pay the rentals to LEYCON. Precisely because there was already a judicial fiat to METROCAN, there was no more reason to continue with Civil Case No. 4398-V-94. Thus, METROCAN moved for the dismissal of the interpleader action not because it is no longer interested but because there is no more need for it to pursue such cause of action.

It should be remembered that an action of interpleader is afforded to protect a person not against double liability but against double vexation in respect of one liability.7 It requires, as an indespensable requisite, that "conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against the plaintiff-in-interpleader who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants."8 The decision in Civil Case No. 6202 resolved the conflicting claims insofar as payment of rentals was concerned.

Petitioner is correct in saying that it is not bound by the decision in Civil Case No. 6202. It is not a party thereto. However, it could not compel METROCAN to pursue Civil Case No. 4398-V-94. RCBC has other avenues to prove its claim. Is not bereft of other legal remedies. In fact, he issue of ownership can very well be threshed out in Civil Case No. 4037-V-93, the case for Nullification of Extrajudicial foreclosure Sale and Damages filed by LEYCON against RCBC.

Sec.2 Order – Contents of the interpleader order – Upon filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order:

a. Requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another

b. If the interest of justice so requires, the order may direct that the subject matter be paid or delivered to the court

Sec.3. SummonsSummons shall be served upon the conflicting claimants, together with a copy of the complaint and order.

Sec.4. Motion to dismiss – When to file a motion to dismiss – Within the time for filing an answer

a. Within 15 days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court (sec.1, rule 11)

Who may file a motion to dismiss the complaint of interpleader – Each conflicting claimant

On what grounds: Ground of impropriety of interpleader

action or On appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16

1. Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

2. Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim

3. the venue is improperly laid4. the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue5. litis pendencia6. res judicata7. pleading asserting the claim states no

cause of action8. the claim or demand has been waived,

paid, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished

9. claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the statute of frauds

10. condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied

Effect of filing a motion to dismiss –The period to file the answer shall be tolled and if the motion is denied, the movant may file his answer within the remaining period, but

which shall not be less than 5 days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

Sec.5. Answer and other pleadings – each claimant shall file his answer within 15

days from service of summons upon him his answer shall also be served a copy upon

each of the other claimants other claimants whom upon copy of an

answer of the other claimant may file their reply thereto as provided by the rules

if any claimant fails to plead within the time herein fixed, the court may, on motion, declare him in default and thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect to the subject matter.

The parties in an interpleader action may file counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by the rules.

Sec.6. Determination – After the pleadings of the conflicting claimants have been filed, and pre-trial has been conducted in accordance with the Rules, the court shall proceed to determine, their respective rights and adjudicate their several claims.

Maglente vs Hon. Baltazar-Padilla – GR. No. 148182 – 3-7-2007 –A court cannot issue a writ of possession when the right of possession or ownership was not validly determined and was not investigated during an interpleader action.

FACTS: Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC) owns a parcel of land. The same was leased to the petitioner Maglente. In their leased

contract, it provides that if PRC sell the property, petitioner shall have a right of first refusal (given the first priority to buy it). When the leased contract was about to expire, PRC sent letter offering to sell the property to petitioner. the latter response to the letter, and intimated that she would exercise her right of first refusal. However, on a later date, PRC receive an offer from respondent that they will buy the land.

PRC filed an interpleader action with RTC against the claimants. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner declaring that she had the right to purchase the land and order PRC to execute the corresponding the contract of sale in favor of the petitioner.

At the rendition of said judgment, the respondents have been occupying the said property. petitioner then filed for the issuance of writ of possession. However, respondents objected on the ground that the trial court’s decision on the interpleader case merely resolved petitioners’ right to purchase the leased property but did not declare them as the owners entitled to possession.

Issue: whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of possession being adjudge in the interpleader case as the rightful parties to purchase the said land.

Ruling: No. petitioner are not entitled to a writ of possession. , petitioners’ argument that the trial court’s writ of execution17 in the interpleader case carried with it the corollary right to a writ of possession is without merit. A writ of possession complements the writ of

execution only when the right of possession or ownership has been validly determined in a case directly relating to either.18 The interpleader case obviously did not delve into that issue.

Furthermore, the rule is that the enforcement of a judgment may not vary or alter the tenor of the judgment but must strictly conform to it.19 It should be in harmony with the judgment that gives it life and not exceed it.20 We thus cannot fault the trial court for refusing to issue a writ of possession to petitioners as its issuance would not be in conformity with the trial court’s judgment in the interpleader case.

Finally, petitioners cannot recover possession of the property via a mere motion. They must file the appropriate action in court against respondents to recover possession. While this remedy can delay their recovery, this Court cannot permit an abbreviated method without subverting the rules and processes established for the orderly administration of justice.

Sec.7. Docket and other lawful fees –The docket and other lawful fees paid by the party who filed a complaint of interpleader, as well as the costs and litigation expenses, shall constitute a lien or charge upon the subject matter of the action, unless the court shall order otherwise.

Court with jurisdiction (BP 129, as amended)Sec.19 and Sec. 33The court with jurisdiction over an action for interpleader shall depend upon the following:

1. RTC – Subject matter of the action is personal

property, valued more than 300,000 outside Metro Manila and in Metro Manila, at more than 400,000

Subject matter of the action REAL PROPERTY with an assessed value exceeding 20,000 outside Manila, and in Manila, exceeding 50,000

MTC has jurisdiction if otherwise:Civil actions/personal property:

Outside MM – does not exceed 300,000 in MM – Does not exceed 400,000

Civil actions which involve titled to, or possession of, real property or any interest therein: Based on Assessed Value

Outside MM – assessed value does not exceed 20,000

In MM – assessed value does not exceed 50,000

Note: where the conflicting claims involve the right to receive a particular sum, the amount of sum claimed determines jurisdiction.

Bar Question (1997):What courts have jurisdiction over the following cases filed in Metro Manila?

d. An action for interpleader to determine who between the defendants is entitled to receive the amount of 190,000 from the plaintiff.

Suggested Answer:The action shall be filed in the metropolitan court in Metro Manila. The amount of 190,000 not being in excess of 400,000 is within the jurisdiction of said court.