Rule 70

RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
In an Actions available to recover possession of real property there are 3 kinds:

1. Accion Interdictal ;
2. Accion Publiciana; and
3. Accion Reinvindicatoria.
 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES are Accion Interdictal. They must be brought within 1 year
from the date of actual of entry of the land in case of forcible entry or from the date of last demand in case of unlawful
detainer cases.
 Accion Publiciana – is a plenary action for the recovery of the right to possess real property when the action is
brought more than 1 year from the accrual of the cause of action.
 Accion Reinvindicatoria is an action which seeks the recovery of ownership. It is an action whereby the Plaintiff
alleges ownership of a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.
2 Kinds of Ejectment cases

1. FORCIBLE ENTRY
 The issue is physical or material possession, where the defendant’s possession to the property is
illegal ab initio. For forcible entry suit to prosper, plaintiff must allege prior physical possession and
unlawful deprivation by the defendant through force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth.
2. UNLAWFUL DETAINER
 The issue is physical or material possession, Not necessary for the plaintiff to allege that he has prior
physical of the premises subject of the action. This is not necessary because the Plaintiff is not in
prior possession. It is the defendant who initially has lawful possession of the property, but his
possession eventually becomes unlawful upon the termination or expiration of the right to possess.
In other words the Entry is legal but possession thereafter becomes illegal.
(Requirements) To make a case for unlawful detainer, the Complaint must alleged that:
 Initially the defendant lawfully possess the property either by contract or by tolerance;
 Plaintiff notified defendant that his possession is terminated;
 Defendant remained in the possession and deprived the plaintiff of its enjoyment.
 The Plaintiff filed a complaint within 1 year from the last demand on the defendant to vacate the
same.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
 There must be prior physical possession and unlawful deprivation by defendant through force,
intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth.
JURISDICTION
First level courts have jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. Even an allegation of tenancy before the
MTC does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court continues to have authority to hear and evaluate the
evidence precisely to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction or if the same pertains to the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
While the rule is that what is to be determined only in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases is the issue on physical or
material possession, the MTC can determine an issue of ownership raised by way of defense. This defense of ownership cannot
however deprive the MTC of jurisdiction over the case. However, this power to determine questions of ownership is only for
the purpose of determining character of possession and in a situation where the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership. The court in this case cannot however declare with finality who the true and unlawful
owner is. The determination is only provisional or initial. It is only for the purpose of determining the question of possession.
As emphasized by the Supreme Court in the case of PLDT (G.R. No. 214546, October 09, 2019):
Sometime in 2003, Cam decided to construct a 16-storey commercial building on a parcel of land in Cebu City. The
Cebu City Zoning Board required Cam to construct a 1-level parking area consisting of 26 parking slots. To comply with this
requirement, CAM had to make a deep excavation to lay the foundation of the parking lot. In the process, it discovered
telephone lines, cables, and manholes underground, which had been placed there by PLDT in the year 1983. These encroached
on CAM’s property, preventing it from excavating the land. On April 26, 2004, CAM wrote PLDT, demanding that it remove the
underground telephone lines, cables, and manholes, or to shoulder the parking exemption fee. On May 28, 2004, CAM made a
final demand on PLDT to comply until June 15, 2004. When PLDT still refused to comply, CAM filed a complaint for ejectment
against PLDT.
In its answer PLDT argued that the case should be dismissed since the action for forcible entry had prescribed and also PLDT
argued that the area in question was part of public domain, it being a sidewalk.
The MTC granted CAM’s ejectment complaint.
Issue: Had the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the said taking into consideration the element of prior physical possession and
the prescriptive period.
The Supreme Court said NO. An action for ejectment is a summary proceeding meant "to provide an expeditious means of
protecting actual possession or right of possession of property." In this special civil action, the title to the property is not
involved. The only matter resolved is the question as to "who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises
or possession de facto which is not so in this case because here, CAM alleges ownership on the property which was the ground
therein raised in order to eject PLDT and to let PLDT comply with the removal of the lines, cables and manholes.
Ownership is not the subject of Accion Interdictal but merely physical or material possession.
Another Question: May a boundary dispute be resolved in the context of an action for forcible entry under Rule 70? NO.
In forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the very beginning and the issue centers on who between the
plaintiff and the defendant had prior physical possession de facto. If the petitioner had possession of the disputed areas by
virtue of the same being covered by the metes and bounds stated or defined in the Torrens Title, then it might not be a validly
dispossessed thereof through an action for forcible entry. The dispute should be properly treated in an accion reinvindicatoria
wherein plaintiff alleges ownership of the parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. Therefore, a boundary
dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
JUDGMENT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER
The same is immediately executory upon a motion. To stay execution, the defendant must perfect an appeal, file a sufficient
supersedeas bond executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and cost accruing from the time the judgment
appealed from is promulgated. During the pendency of the appeal, he must also deposit with the amount of the rent due from
time to time under the contract and if there is no contract, deposit reasonable value of the use and occupancy of the property.
After the lapse of the 1 year period, accion interdictal is no longer proper so the recovery of the property may be brought
through accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria.
Question: May a person who are not parties to the unlawful detainer case may be ejected from the land subject of the case?
YES. Although an action for ejectment is an action in personam – wherein the judgment is binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded given the opportunity to be heard, the judgment here becomes binding on anyone who has not been
impleaded if he or she is a trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant occupying the property or a guest or occupants of the
premises with the permission of the defendant or a transferee pendente lite or a sub-lessee, co-lessee or a family member or a
relative or privy of the defendant.

Rule 70

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 70

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 70

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 70

FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

In an Actions available to recover possession of real property there are 3 kinds:

2 Kinds of Ejectment cases

The MTC granted CAM’s ejectment complaint.

JUDGMENT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.