"Ruling of the Court
We grant the Petition.
Definition, Purpose, and Concept of an Action for Declaratory Relief
Declaratory relief is a special civil action filed by 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, before breach or violation thereof, to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights thereunder.15
The purpose of the action for declaratory relief is for the court to interpret or determine the validity of the written instrument, statute, executive order, or any other governmental regulation and to secure from the court an authoritative statement of the parties' rights and obligations thereunder for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance,16 but not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach.17 The issue is thus limited to the question of construction or validity of the provisions in a written instrument or statute.18 In a declaratory relief action, "the [r]elief is confined to a case of actual controversy within the Court's jurisdiction, without the need of injunction, execution, or other relief beyond the adjudication of the legal rights which are the subject of controversy between the parties."19
In Aquino v. Municipality of Malay,20 the Court explained the concept of declaratory relief, viz.:
An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of the 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 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.21 (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
Thus, a court can no longer assume jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject, i.e., statute, deed, or contract, has already been contravened prior to the filing of the action.22 Where the statute, deed, or contract has already been breached or violated, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to file the appropriate ordinary civil action in court.23 In Tambunting, Jr. v. Spouses Sumabat,24 the Court stressed that an action for declaratory relief, filed after an infraction of the mortgage terms, did not interrupt the running of the ten-year prescriptive period to enforce petitioners' right under the mortgage since the lower court lacked jurisdiction over such action and all proceedings therein were without legal effect.
Requisites for an Action for Declaratory Relief
The requisites of an action for declaratory relief are: (1) the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; (2) the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction; (3) there must have been no breach of the documents in question; (4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons whose interests are adverse; (5) the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and (6) adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.25
Actual Case or Controversy Requirement
A petition for declaratory relief is not exempt from the actual case or controversy requirement. Jurisprudence reveals a common ground in applying the actual case or controversy requirement – there must be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the issues, such that the questions raised may be resolved without relying on speculations or hypothetical scenarios.
The determination of sufficient facts is more nuanced in petitions for declaratory relief. Applying the third and fourth requisites for a declaratory relief action, We must locate the fine point where there exists an actual case or controversy, yet there is no breach of the documents in question. On this note, former Chief Justice Moran opined that accomplished physical wrong need not be alleged in a petition for declaratory relief.26
This is best explained in the case of Republic v. Roque,27 where a petition for declaratory relief was filed by private respondents to assail the constitutionality of RA 9372, or the Human Security Act of 2007. We explained that a justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory. The term 'ripening seeds' means "not that sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed with, but that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it has accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and violence of a full-blown battle that looms ahead." The concept describes "a state of facts indicating imminent and inevitable litigation provided that the issue is not settled and stabilized by tranquilizing declaration."28
Following the disquisition in Roque, in a petition for declaratory relief, there are "sufficient facts" when there is a showing of an imminent and inevitable litigation if the issue is not judicially settled. The same rule was declared in CJH Development v. BIR29 where We ruled that ripeness in declaratory relief cases means that litigation is inevitable or there is no adequate relief available in any other form or proceeding.30 To require more than this standard will already negate the requirement that declaratory relief cases should be filed before any breach.
Admittedly, the standard of imminent and inevitable litigation in declaratory relief petitions is easier to overcome than the general standard on ripeness that petitioner must have suffered injury or been held liable under an assailed governmental act. However, this should not be construed to mean that declaratory relief cases are exceptions to the restrictive application of judicial restraint. It must be remembered that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over declaratory relief cases. Moreover, the last requisite of declaratory relief is that there must be a showing that adequate relief is not available through other means. Section 5, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court also states that "the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action, or in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the circumstances." All of these suggest a restrictive interpretation in taking cognizance of declaratory relief cases.
Thus, in the recent cases of Universal Robina Corporation v. Department of Trade and Industry31 and Executive Secretary v. Pilipinas Shell,32 We emphasized that the standard rules of justiciability apply in a petition for declaratory relief, which assails the constitutionality of a statute. The petitioner in a declaratory petition must establish that there is a legally demandable and enforceable right under the Constitution and that the resolution of the statute's constitutionality is necessary to protect such right.33 Nevertheless, We clarified that the exercise of judicial review may not always require actual facts resulting from the assailed law, as applied, since a clear and convincing demonstration of a contrariety of rights may suffice.34
An Action for Declaratory Relief is proper in this case
At the outset, the Court finds that all the elements of declaratory relief are present in this case. Section l, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for declaratory relief may be filed before the RTC by any person whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation, before breach or violation thereof, to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder.
Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the terms of the assailed statutes, especially in relation to the pertinent IRR, have created doubts on the proper application of the 20% discount on funeral and burial services. Respondent, a corporation engaged in selling memorial lots and providing interment services, is directly affected by the assailed statutes and the IRR. Xxxx."
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 243133. March 08, 2023 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS AFFAIRS (OSCA), DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT (DSWD), PETITIONERS, VS. PRYCE CORPORATION, INC., RESPONDENT.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/mar2023/gr_243133_2023.html
