Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

RULE 70

What is forcible entry?

It is entry effected by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; the action is to recover
possession founded upon illegal possession from the beginning.

NOTE: It is commenced by a verified complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 70)

Requisites of valid forcible entry:

1. A person is deprived of possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat,

strategy,or stealth; and

2. Action is brought within 1 year from the unlawful deprivation. (Sec. 1)

What are the questions to be resolved in an action for forcible entry?

1. Who has actual possession over the real property

2. Was the possessor ousted therefore within one year from filing of the complaint by force,
intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth

3. Does the plaintiff ask for the restoration of his possession

What is unlawful detainer?

It is unlawful detention by a person who has acquired possession rightfully, but who detains the
property after the right to keep possession has ended.

NOTE: It is commenced by a verified complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 70)

Requisites of valid unlawful detainer

1. Possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld from a lessor, vendor, vendee,
or other person after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by
virtue of any contract express or implies;

2. Action is brought within 1 year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of

possession

3. Demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon
the lessee.

NOTE: The existence of a formal contract is NOT necessary in unlawful detainer; There can still
be unlawful detainer because implied contracts are covered by ejectment proceedings;
Tolerance creates and implied promise to vacate the premises upon the demand of the owner.
 The amount of rents and damages claimed does not affect jurisdiction of the MTCs
because the same are only incidental or accessory to the main action.

What is the nature of an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer?

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions are summary in nature designed to provide
for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the
property involved (Tubiano vs. Riazo, 335 SCRA 531). These action shall both fall under the
coverage of the Rules of Summary Procedure irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
rental sought to be recovered (Sec. 3, Rule 70).
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are summary in nature designed to provide for an
expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right of possession of the property
involved.

What rule should govern the proceedings of accion interdictal?

Ejectment cases are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of

protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Except in when the decision of
the MTC is appealed to the RTC, the applicable, the applicable rules are those of the latter
court.

JURISDICTION

The actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer are within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the MTC, MeTC and MCTC and shall be governed by the rules on summary
procedure irrespective of the amount of damages or rental sought to be recovered (Sec. 3, Rule
70).
Who may institute the action?

Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of
any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court
against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person
or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages
and costs. (Sec. 1, Rule 70)

PROHIBITED PLEADINGS, PETITIONS AND MOTIONS

1. A reply, third-party complaint and pleadings-in-intervention are not allowed ( Sec. 13,
Rule 70)

2. Bill of particulars, new trial, reconsideration of judgment; reopening of trial; extension of

time to file pleadings affidavits or any other paper; motion to declare the defendant in
default, or a dilatory motion for postponement.

3. A motion to dismiss the complaint is also disallowed; XPN a) lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, b) failure to comply with Sec. 12, Rule 70

4. Filing of a petition for relief from judgment, petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court

Section 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following petitions, motions, or pleadings
shall not be allowed:

1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

over the subject matter, or failure to comply with section 12;

2. Motion for a bill of particulars;

3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of

trial;

4. Petition for relief from judgment;

5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;

6. Memoranda;

7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order

issued by the court;

8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;

 9. Dilatory motions for postponement;

10. Reply;

11. Third-party complaints;

12. Interventions. (19a, RSP)

ACTION OF THE COMPLAINT

The court may, from an examination of the allegations in the complaint and such
evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the
dismissal of a civil action which are apparent therein. If no ground for dismissal is found, it shall
forthwith issue summons. (Sec. 5, Rule 70.)

EXAMPLES OF CASES WHICH DO NOT BARR AN ACTION FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY OR

UNLWAFUL DETAINER

There are cases filed the RTC which do not prevent the filing of an actionfor forcible
entry and unlawful detainer.

1. Injuction suits instituted in the RTC by the defendants in ejectment actions in the MTC.

2. Accion Publiciana (suit against the plaintiff)

3. Writ of possession case- where the ownership is concededly the principal issued before
the RTC.

4. An action for quieting of titleSuits for specific performance with damages

5. An action for reformation of the instrument

6. An action for the reconveyance of property or “accion reinvindicatoria”

7. Neither do suits for annulment of the sale, or title or document

WHEN IS DEMAND NECESSARY? (Bar 1990)

Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lesser shall be commenced only after
demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the
lessee.

It is the demand to vacate the premises and the refusal to do so which make unlawful
the withholding of the possession. Such refusal violates the plaintiff’s right of possession and
gives rise to an action for unlawful detainer.

TO PAY AND VACATE

 The proper demand should me “to comply...AND to vacate” and not to “to compy OR
vacate”. The latter type of demand gives rise an action for specific performance, not unlawful
detainer.

FORM OF DEMAND

1. The demand may be in the form of a written notice served upon the person found in the
premises. The demand may also be made by posting such written notice on the
premises if no person can be found thereon (Sec. 2, Rule 70)

2. Demand upon a tenant may be verbal and is deemed a sufficient compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements. (Jakihaca v Aquiono, 181 SCRA 67, 70) Since the demand is
not written, sufficient evidence must be adduces to show that there was indeed a
demand like testimonies from disinterested and unbiased witnesses.

RIGHT TO COMMENCE THE ACTION ARISES

15 days in the case of a land; 5 days in the case of buildings

TACITA RECONDUCCION

Art. 1670 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the lessee should continue enjoying the
property leased for fifteen days with the consent of the lessor, and no notice of the contrary has
been given.

When there is tacita reconduccion, the lessee cannot be deemed as unlawfully

withholding the property.

The Court explained that an implied new lease will set in if it is shown that

1. A term of the original contract of lease has expired

2. The lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate

3. The lessee continued enjoying the thing for 15 days with the acquiescence of the
lessor

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINANT; WAIVER OF DEFENSES

1. The rule requires the defendant to file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy
thereof on the plaintiff within ten (10) days from service of summons.

2. Affirmative and negative defences not plesaded in the answer shall be deemed waived,
except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

3. Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the answer in the answer
shall be considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be served
and filed within 10 days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ANSWER

Under Sec. 7 of RULE 70, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint withing the
period provided, the court has no authority to declare the defendant in default. (unlike in Rule 9)
Instead, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be
warranted by the alleged facts on the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein.

DEFENSE OF TENANCY

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
Hence, the defences in the answer do not determine jurisdiction. It is a well-settled principle that
the courts shall not be divested of jurisdiction over a case merely by what is raised in the
answer.

CONCILLIATION REQUIREMENT

In the case conciliation is required and there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, the case shall be dismissed. The dismissal, however, is one without prejudice.
Hence, the case may be revived but only if the concilliation requiremnt is complied with. (Sec.
12, Rule 70)

Can the court grant injunction while the case is pending?

The court may grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58,
to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff. A
possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, within five
(5) days from the filing of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or
unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in
his possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof
(Sec. 15, Rule 70).

To prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the
plaintiff.

RTC

1. From the MTC, RTC may issue writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the
plaintiff in possession; which shall be filed withing 10 days from the perfection of the
appeal.

2. The grant of the writ; a) defendant’s appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or b) plaintiff’s appeal
is prima facie meritorious

RESOLVING THE DEFENSE OF OWNERSHIP

When the defendant raises the issue of ownership, the court may resolve the issue of
ownership only under the following conditions:
 (a) When the issue of possession cannot be resolved without resolving the issue of
ownership; and

(b) The issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession
(Sec. 16).

The assertion by the defendant of ownership over the disputed property does not serve
to divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction. The defendant cannot deprive the court of
jurisdiction by merely claiming ownership of the property involved (Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia
vs. Dimatulac, 401 SCRA 742; Perez vs. Cruz, 404 SCRA 487)

If the defendant raises the question of ownership and the issue of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the question of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession (Sec. 3, RA 7691).

HOW IS THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT STAYED?

Defendant must take the following steps to stay the execution of the judgment:

1. Perfect an appeal

2. File a supersedeas bond to pay for the rents, damages and costs accruing down to the
time of the judgment appealed from

3. Deposit periodically with the RTC, during the pendency of the appeal, the adjudged
amount of rent due under the contract or if there be no contract, the reasonable value of
the use and occupation of the premises (Sec. 19, Rule 70).

PERSONS BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT IN EJECTMENT CASES

The judgment in an ejectment case is binding onlyupon the parties properly impleaded
and given anopportunity to be heard.

Although an ejectment suit is an accion in personam wherein the judgment is binding

only upon the parties properly impleaded and given an opportunityto be heard, the judgment
becomes binding on anyone who has not been impleaded if he or she is a:

1. Trespasser, squatter or an agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to

frustrate the judgment

2. Guest or occupant with the permission of the defendant

3. Transferee pendente lite

4. Sublessee

5. Co-lessee
6. Member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant