Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Intorduction:

The actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer belong to the class of actions known
by the generic name accion interdictal (ejectment) where the issue is the right of physical or
material possession of the subject real property independent of any claim of ownership by the
parties involved.

Accion Interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action:

 FORCIBLE ENTRY (DETENTACION), where one is deprived of physical possession of

real

property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats or stealth (FISTS);

 UNLAWFUL DETAINER (DESAHUICO), where one illegally withholds possession after

the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express
orimplied.

Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in
case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer.

Reason for the inclusion in the 1 year bar rule:

Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer are in the nature of possessory (accion interdictal)
actions involving real properties. As such, these possessory actions need timely resolutions.

Unlike other possessory actions, such as Accion Publiciana and Accion Reivindicatoria, Accion
Interdictal only centers to the issue of material possession over a certain real property.

These are governed by summary procedure.

Reason:

 these actions involve the disturbance of a social order that should be resolved as
promptly as possible.
 These are designed to provide expeditious means in protecting the right to
possession in a certain real property.
 The very purpose of these evictions cases is to provide immeadiate relief so that
parties may not take the law into their own hands.
CHARACTERISTICS OF RULE 70.

 This kind of Special Civil action is a real action which involves possession of real property.
 It is the only real action covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. (the other one is
accion publiciana)
 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.
 Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. The mere raising of the
issue of tenancy does not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction because the
jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations of the complaint and is not
dependent upon the defenses set up by the defendant.

RECAP OF PROPERTY LAW

WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO BE FILED IN COURT GOVERNING REAL

PROPERTY?

1. Accion Reivindicatoria - Recovery of Ownership

2. Accion Publiciana – Recovery of Possession
3. Accion Interdictal – Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Actions Accion Accion Accion

Reivindicatoria Publiciana Interdictal
Characteristic An action for the A plenary action Summary action
recovery of for the recovery for the recovery
owenership, of real right of of physical
which necessarily possession when possession
includes recovery the where the
of possession dispossession dispossession
has lasted for has not lasted for
more than 1year more than 1 year
Jurisdiction RTC if value of RTC if value of MTC only
property exceeds property
P20, 000 and P50 exceeds P20 000
000 in Metro and P50 000 in
Manila Metro Manila

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — 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. (1a)

Section 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. — 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, or by serving written notice of such
demand upon the person found on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee
fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of
buildings. (2a)

DISCUSSION

FORCIBLE ENTRY consists of depriving a person of the possession of land or building

for a period of time not exceeding one (1) year by force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth
(FISTS) (Tenerio v. Gamboa, 81, Phil. 55)

The sole issure in forcible entry is: Who has the better right to possess the property
involved. As such, a non-registered owner can file an action for forcible entry since the sole issue
is who has the better right to possess the property.

When to reckon the 1-year period?

- It shall be reckoned from the time of entry.

What do you mean by Strategy and Stealth?

- Strategy means machinations or artifice. Stealth is defined as any secret, sly or clandestine
act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within the residence of another
without permission.

UNLAWFUL DETAINER consists in the unlawful withholding by a person from another, for
not more than one (1) year, of the possession of any land or building after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold to hold such possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied.

When to reckon the 1-year period?

- It shall be reckoned from the time of the last demand.

Distinction between Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Actions Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer

As to Possession: Possession is unlawful from Possession was lawfully
the beginning acquired and became
unlawful only because of
termination of the right. (ex:
Lessee)
As to demand: Formal demand is not In unlawful detainer for
required failure to pay rent or to
comply with the conditions of
the lease contract, a formal
demand to pay and to vacate
is required otherwise the
court has no jurisdiction over
the case (Dikit v. Ycasiano, 89
Phil. 44)
As to when to reckon the one Within one (1) year from Within one (1) year From the
(1) year period entry last demand

What is common between Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer?

The issue to be resolved in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer is merely PHYSICAL
POSSESSION, not ownership; not right of possession but physical possession.

Question: Can a squatter occupying a property file a forcible entry case against another squatter
who forcibly ejected him?

Answer: So even if he is not an owner, he can file a case because according to the Supreme Cour,
the purpose of these actions is to prevent breaches of pease and criminal disorder will ensue if
there were no such remedy. (Villaflor v. Reyes, January 20, 1968)

Distinction between Accion Interdictal (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer) from Accion
Publiciana (since both deal with recovery of possession)

Actions Accion Interdictal (Forcible Accion Publiciana

As to Possession
Entry and Unlawful Detainer)
Is an ordinary civil action the
Are under the Summary purpose of which is recovery
Rules, the purpose of which is of the right of possession de
recovery of possession de jure – real right.
facto.

It is with the RTC if the value

exceeds P20 000. If it is less
As to Juridiction than P20 000, it is with the
 Exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. (but it is not governed
MTC by summary rules)

One (1) year from unlawful May be filed at any time

As to time of filing
deprivation or unlawful before ownership or other
withholding of possession real rights over the real
property involved are lost by
acquisitive prescription.
Normally 10 years. If in bad
faith, 30 years.

Question: How about if the property is titled?

Answer: In Sarona v. Villegas, the court held that acquisitive prescription applies only to untiyled
property. If the property is titled under the Torrens Title, you can file the case even after 100 years
because prescription will not work against a torrens title.

There are some instances when it is very hard to determine whether it is an unlawful
detainer or forcible entry like in the case of Lim Kieh Tong v. CA

Held: From the facts of the case, it appears that Lim Kieh Tong Inc.
through Stealth deprived Reginaldo Lim of the possessiom of the
rented room. Therefore the suit is one for Forcible Entry under Rule
70.

ALLEGATIONS IN FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Forcible Entry:

1. One case held that two allegations are indispensable in actions for forcible entry to enable
first level courts to acquire jurisdiction over them:
a. That the Plaintiff had prior physical possession of the property
b. That the defendeant deprived him of such possession by means of FISTS.
(Abad v. Farrales, April 11, 2011)
2. Unlawfully entering the subject property, erecting a structure thereon and excluding the
lawful possessor therefrom would necessarily imply the use of force. In order to constitue
force, the trespasser does not have to institute a state of war. (Antazo v. Doblada, 611
SCRA 586)
3. Prior physical possession is the primary consideration in a Forcible Entry case. A party
who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner.

Sample Case: Time Broadcasting Network v. CA

Examples:
 1. In one case, the complaint for forcible entry alleges :

“that the defendant unlawfully turned the plaintiff out of the possession of the property in question”

Is that an allegation of Prior Phyisical Possession? Is that complaint sufficient?

Yes. While it is not rue that there was an express allegation of prior physical possession by
the plaintiff, this fact can be inferred from the words “unlawfully turned the plaintiff out of
possession” for how can a person turn someone out of possession if the latter was not in
physical possession of the property. The allegation of prior physical possession by the plaintiff
need not be express. It is enough that said allegation is inferable from the other allegations in
the complaint (Maddammu v. Mun. Court of Manila, 74 Phil. 230)

2. On the other hand, suppose the complaint for Forcible Entry alleged:

“That before plaintiff could take possession and occupy the said house, defendant surreptitiously occupy
the same without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff”

Is the complaint sufficient?

No. it is not sufficient. It is clear from the allegation that the Plaintiff has not had prior physical
possession because of the phrase “before plaintiff could take possession of…”(Maddammu v.
Mun. Court of Manila, 74 Phil. 230)

3. In another case of Forcible Entry, the complaint alleged:

“That the plaintiff has been deprived of the landin question by the defendant”

Is it a sufficient allegation in a complaint for Forcible Entry?

No. there was no allegation that the deprivation of possession was illegal through FISTS.
Thus, it must be alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is deprived through FISTS.
(Gumiran v. Gumiran 21 Phil. 174)

Unlawful Detainer (Important Allegations)

Of course, you must have to admit that the defendant was already in legal possession.
And then there must be an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession by
the plaintiff.

An allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is

deemed sufficient, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for Unlawful Detainer if it recites the following:
 1. Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract wityh or tolerance
of the plaintiff.
2. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the
termination of the latter’s right of possession.
3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof.
4. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the
plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. (Romullo v. SMKBCHA, Inc.)

DEMAND:

Demand to vacate under Section 2 is an essential requirement in Unlawful Detainer.

The possession of the defendant cannot be unlawful until there is demand to leave and
the defendant refuses to do so.

Demand is a Jurisdictional Requirement

As such, if there is no demand to vacate, the case will be dismissed because the MTC has
no jurisdiction.

Unless there exists a stipulation to the contrary, an unlawful detainer case shall be
commenced only after the demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate
is made upon the lessee.

The requirement for a demand implies that the mere failure of the occupant to pay rentals
or his failure to comply with the conditions of the lease does not ipso facto render his possession
of the premises unlawful. It is the failure to comply with the demand that vests upon the lessor a
cause of action.

Form of Demand

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 a written notice on the premises if no person
can be found thereon. It has been ruled, however, that the demand upon a tenant may be oral.
Sufficient evidence must be adduced to show that there was indeed a demand like testimonies
from disinterested and unbiased witnesses.

WHAT IS DEMAND?

1. Demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease contract: AND
2. Demand to Vacate.

Suppose a letter state that:

 “This is to remind you, Mr. Vicco that you have not been paying rentals for the past 4 months. I
hereby give you 3 days to pay all your rentals”

Is the letter sufficient? No, because there is no demand to vacate.

Cases on sufficiency of demand.

Lecasa v. Cuevas An alternative demand to pay rentals or to

vacate is legally sufficient for the purpose of
ejectment suit. A more definite and
unconditional demand to vacate is not
necessary where the lessee has no legal right
to remain in the premises for his refusal to pay
the increased rentals.

Penas v. CA “I am giving you until next mont to pay OR

vacate”
It was held that there is no proper demand to
vacate .
Golden Gate v. IAC “I am giving you five (5) days to pay back
rentals, otherwise I will file an ejectment case
against you”
It was held that the letter is sufficient. The
word “vacate” is not a talismanic word that
must be employed I all notices. The
alternatives in this case are clear cut. “
La Campana Food Products v. CA “Warning: Upon your failure to pay your
unpaid rentals and unpaid water bills, I will
forward this matter to our legal counsel for
proper action”

It was held that the statement does not show

an unequivocal or even an implied demand on
the lessee to vacate from the premises.
Bandoy v. CA The matter was brought up to the Barangay
Captain first before the filing of an ejectment
case.
It was held that the certification of the
Barangay Captain is not conclusive as to the
jurisdiction of the court. The Barangay
proceedings does not tantamount to Demand.

Question: When do you count the one-year period? From the date of the first demand or
second demand?

The standing rule is: Latest Demand

As held in the case of Penas v. CA:

 The one-year period provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 should be counted from the
last letter of demand to vacate. The reason being that the lessor has the right to
waive his right of action based on the previous demand and let the lessee remain
in the meanwhile. In effect, the possession of the lessee is legalized by the lessor
by not doing anything.