1. Three individuals filed a petition for declaratory relief in a Philippine court seeking a declaration that they are Filipino citizens. The Solicitor General argued there was no justiciable controversy since no specific person was alleged to deny their citizenship.
2. The trial court declared the individuals were Filipino citizens but the Solicitor General appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a petition for declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy between adverse parties, which was not present in this case.
3. As no one was alleged to question the individuals' citizenship, their petition sought only to remove doubts and decide a hypothetical issue, which does not establish a valid cause of action for declaratory relief. The
1. Three individuals filed a petition for declaratory relief in a Philippine court seeking a declaration that they are Filipino citizens. The Solicitor General argued there was no justiciable controversy since no specific person was alleged to deny their citizenship.
2. The trial court declared the individuals were Filipino citizens but the Solicitor General appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a petition for declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy between adverse parties, which was not present in this case.
3. As no one was alleged to question the individuals' citizenship, their petition sought only to remove doubts and decide a hypothetical issue, which does not establish a valid cause of action for declaratory relief. The
1. Three individuals filed a petition for declaratory relief in a Philippine court seeking a declaration that they are Filipino citizens. The Solicitor General argued there was no justiciable controversy since no specific person was alleged to deny their citizenship.
2. The trial court declared the individuals were Filipino citizens but the Solicitor General appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a petition for declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy between adverse parties, which was not present in this case.
3. As no one was alleged to question the individuals' citizenship, their petition sought only to remove doubts and decide a hypothetical issue, which does not establish a valid cause of action for declaratory relief. The
1. Three individuals filed a petition for declaratory relief in a Philippine court seeking a declaration that they are Filipino citizens. The Solicitor General argued there was no justiciable controversy since no specific person was alleged to deny their citizenship.
2. The trial court declared the individuals were Filipino citizens but the Solicitor General appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a petition for declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy between adverse parties, which was not present in this case.
3. As no one was alleged to question the individuals' citizenship, their petition sought only to remove doubts and decide a hypothetical issue, which does not establish a valid cause of action for declaratory relief. The
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
1. ANTONIO DELUMEN, et al. vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
January 28, 1954 G.R. No. L-5552 FACTS: Antonio, Juan and Julito, all surnamed Delumen (petitioners herein) filed a petition for declaratory relief in the CFI of Samar, alleging that they are legitimate children of Pacencia Pua, a Filipino woman, and Mariano Delumen who was declared a Filipino citizen by the same court in an order dated August 7, 1950, and praying said court to determine whether they are Filipino citizens and to declare their corresponding rights and duties. It is further alleged in the petition that the petitioners have continuously resided in the Philippines since their birth, have considered themselves as Filipinos, had exercised the right to vote in the general elections of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for the elections in 1951. The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed an answer alleging that the petition states no cause of action, there being no adverse party against whom the petitioners have an actual or justiciable controversy. CFI of Samar declared the appellees to be Filipinos by birth and blood. From this decision the Solicitor General has appealed SOLICITOR GENERALS CONTENTION: "A petition for declaratory relief must be predicated on the following requisites: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination." Justiciable controversy is one involving " an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real, and not a mere theoretical question or issue," and that in the present case "no specific person was mentioned in the petition as having or claiming an adverse interest in the matter and with whom the appellees have an actual controversy PETITIONERS CONTENTION: By virtue of the answer filed by the Solicitor General opposing the petition for declaratory relief, a justiciable controversy thereby arose ISSUE: Whether or not an action for declaratory relief is proper. HELD: NO. A petition for declaratory relief must be predicated on the following requisites: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination. We are of the opinion that the appellant's contention is tenable, since there is nothing in the petition which even intimates that the alleged status of the appellees as Filipino citizens had in any instance been questioned or denied by any specific person or authority. Indeed, the petition alleges that the appellees have considered themselves and were considered by their friends and neighbors as Filipino citizens, voted in the general elections of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for the elections of 1951, and it is not pretended that on any of said occasions their citizenship was controverted. It is not accurate to say, as appellees do, that an actual controversy arose after the filing by the Solicitor General of an opposition to the petition, for the reason that the cause of action must be made out by the allegations of the complaint or petition, without the aid of the answer.
As a matter of fact, the answer herein alleges that the petition states no cause of action. In essence, the appellees merely wanted to remove all doubts in their minds as to their citizenship, but an action for declaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues or to determine a moot, abstract or theoretical question, or decide claims which are uncertain or hypothetical. And the fact that the appellees' desires are thwarted by their "own doubts, or by fears of others . . . does not confer a cause of action. arlinehalinadigest
