Rule 61- Support Pendente Lite

117 SCRA 929Support Pendente Lite is an amount adjudicated by the trial court during the pendency of an

action for support, upon application by the plaintiff at the commencement of the proper action or at anytime afterwards.

San Juan vs. Valenzuela, 117 SCRA 926The amount of support pendent lite is not final in character in the sense that it can be subject

of modification, depending on the changing conditions affecting the ability of the obligor to pay the amount fixed for support.

Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 45 SCRA 604Adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support. Consequently,

as to the child, it is also a defense that it is the fruit of such adulterous relations, for in that case, it would be the child of the defendant, hence would not be entitled to support as such.

Rule 62- Interpleader

Rule 63- Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

Tano vs. Socrates, Aug. 14, 1997The Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief, even if

only questions of law are involved like a petition to declare an ordinance unconstitutional. The court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such petitions.

Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Phils, Aug. 21, 1997Where the petition has far-reaching implications and raises questions that should be resolved,

it may be treated as one for mandamus.

Rule 64- Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA

Ambil Jr. vs. COMELECThis constitutional provision was interpreted to mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the

comelec rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The decision must be a final decision or resolution of the comelec en banc. The SC has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Comelec. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.

ABS-CBN vs. Comelec(EXCEPTION) This court has ruled that this procedural requirement (filing a motion for

reconsideration) may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor, when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for the relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available.

Repol vs. ComelecThe court ruled that direct resort to this court is justified under the circumstances. The

holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democratic government.

Rule 65- Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus

Meralco Securities vs. Central Board of AssessmentCertiorari is a writ issued from a superior court to any inferior court, board, or officer,

exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is ordered to be elevated up for review and coercion in matters of law.

Angara vs. Fedman Dev’t Corp.A body or officer may be said to be exercising judicial functions when such officer or body is

clothed with authority and undertakes to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy.

Rule 66- Quo Warranto

Fortunato vs. Palma, 156 SCRA 691Is a proceeding to determine the right to the use or exercise of a franchise or office and to

oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege.

Rule 67-Expropriation