Comparative Analysis on the remedies of the client

Introduction:

A few property owners have failed to evict unlawful occupants resulting to further
damage on their part. Most of us know that removing squatters or informal settlers in a specific
property can take months or even longer. In like manner, squatting is a huge social and economic
problem in the Philippines because the process of removing them from the place that they are
usurping or holding must be in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, Sec. 3 of RA No. 11201 defines Informal Settler Families as households

living in a lot, whether private or public, without the consent of the property owner; or those
without legal claim over the property they are occupying; or those living in danger areas such as
esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, and waterways. Unlawful
occupants of a specific property or informal settlers are definitely a huge problem on the
property owner hence he must consider the best practices in evicting the unlawful occupants and
find cheaper ways to successfully implement the eviction.

Discussion:

This paper aims to inform the reader about the advantages and disadvantages of using a
specific remedy in evicting unlawful occupants of a property.

It is important to know that a property owner has different remedies to eject a squatter.
First, the filing of an ejectment case in the MTCs. Accion Interdictal or ejectment case is a
summary action for the recovery of physical possession where the dispossession has not lasted
for more than one (1) year and this is explicitly stated in Rule 70 of the Rules of Court to wit:

Section 1, Rule 70. 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.

The Supreme Court in one case held that If the complaint does not allege facts showing
compliance with the prescribed one year period to file an action for unlawful detainer, then it
cannot properly qualify as such action over which the MTC can exercise jurisdiction. Such
allegations are jurisdictional and crucial. It may then be an accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria (Estate of Manantan v. Somera, G.R. No. 145867, April 7, 2009). This case
illustrates that compliance with the one-year period is essential for the case to prosper.

In view of the foregoing it is to be noted that ejectment cases must be filed within 1 year
from deprivation or withholding of possession otherwise the same becomes an Accion
Publiciana. The latter, on the other hand, is a plenary action for the recovery of the real right of
possession when the dispossession has lasted for more than 1 year.

Emphasis must be supplied on the fact that ejectment cases are covered by summary
procedure intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to
possession of property however the same must be filed within 1 year from deprivation of
possession of the property.

One advantage of an ejectment case is that it is intended to be speedy. In fact, there is no

trial in ejectment cases. The Rules of Court is explicit on the matter that parties are only required
to submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the
order, together with their position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them
(Sec. 10, Rule 70). To amplify, Sec. 11 of Rule 70 provides that within thirty (30) days after
receipt of the affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same,
the court shall render judgment.

Another advantage of filing an ejectment case is that it is executory provided that the
defendants failed to perfect an appeal or failed to file a supersedeas bond in favor of the plaintiff.
Decisive on the matter is the pertinent provision of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

Section 19, Rule 70. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. — If

judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately
upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial
Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs
accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the
pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent
due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of
the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the
Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the
premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the
judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month
or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial
Court, with the papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action
is appealed.
 It is not accurate to conclude outright that an ejectment case is the best remedy since
disadvantages may arise in choosing this specific remedy. One downside of choosing this
remedy is that docket fees should be paid. In Manchester Development Corporation v. CA (G.R.
No. 75919, May 7, 1987), the Supreme Court held that a court acquires jurisdiction only upon
payment of the prescribed docket fee. Therefore, the property owner shall pay for the docket fees
and not to mention a lawyer’s service will be engaged.

Another setback of an ejectment case is with respect to the execution of the judgment.
There are countless cases wherein even after the judgment becomes final and executory, the
losing party would not want to surrender possession despite the written order of the Court
requiring them to vacate. This scenario may only be a win battle in paper. The real problem lies
still in the execution of the judgment since many squatters or informal settlers tend to be abusive
becoming more difficult to deal with. However, this problem may be solved by active
participation of the property owner, barangay and the police force.

Ejectment cases may also be burdensome to some extent since manpower will be
exhausted in evicting the unlawful occupants.

Second, in removing or evicting the squatters or informal settlers it is well settled that the
use of threat, intimidation or force is not allowed. Hence, it must be done peacefully. The use of
Corporate Bouncers in removing them may imply the use of threat, intimidation, or force
although it may become successful in the end. However, considering this global pandemic which
crippled many businesses and caused death and loss of livelihood, the use of corporate bouncers
to evict them may be considered harsh.

Third, a joint venture is a strategic alliance between two or more individuals or entities
to engage in a specific project or undertaking. While a corporation has no power to enter into a
partnership, it can validly enter into a JV agreement where the nature of that venture is in line
with the business authorized by its charter (Supreme Court in Tuason vs. Bolanos, G.R. No. L-
4935, 28 May 1954). At the outset, a joint venture with the proper LGU to remove unlawful
occupant sounds pleasing to the ears. The corporation or property owner, for the common good
and in cooperation with the proper LGU concerned undertake a program to effective clear the
squatters in an area. However, one pitfall of this remedy is that it may be costly on the part of the
corporation or property owner.

In most cases, a joint venture is a temporary arrangement between two or more

businesses, and a contract is formed under which the terms of the joint venture project are
detailed for each participant. (Date last accessed: September 16, 2020.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032615/what-are-primary-disadvantages-forming-
joint-venture.asp). This may be considered as an advantage since the agreement is dissolved
upon the completion of the project. A joint venture allows each participating parties an
opportunity to scale its resources to complete a specific project or goal while reducing total cost
or risk. Therefore, once the removal of the squatters has been completed the joint venture also
ceases.

Calling the police officers will not help make squatters leave, as there are procedures that
must be adhered to first, and requirements must be met so as to ensure that the eviction and/or
demolition processes are carried out legally. A joint venture with the concerned LGU will create
a presumption of legality. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is
an aid to the effective and unhampered administration of government function.

Also, joint venture requires the preparation of extensive research to protect the cause of
the property owner. It is important to review the strategy before committing to a joint venture to
remove unlawful occupants otherwise it may not be effective at all and may cause prejudice of
the property owner.

Fourth, a settlement between the property owner and the squatters may be the best
option considering humanitarian reasons. The unlawful occupants may proceed to a fresh start
even with their impending removal from their houses provided they are given sufficient money.
This remedy promotes tranquility and peace order. Amicable settlement may prevent loss or peril
to the lives of the government officers or members of the corporation who will enforce the
demolition of houses and structures.