top of page
Writer's pictureRyan Ceazar Romano

A Rundown on Ejectment Cases

The firm recently assisted one of its clients in regaining possession of his property. This article seeks to discuss the nature of ejectment proceedings and the legal remedies in cases of dispossession of real property.


The provision on ejectment is found in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court:


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.[1]


As gleaned from this provision, there are two actions falling under ejectment: forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The primary distinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer lies in the provenance of the prior possession. In forcible entry, the possession of the intruder is illegal at the outset because his or her possession thereof is made against the will or without the consent of the former possessor, particularly by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, by contrast, the possession is previously legal but becomes unlawful upon the expiration of one's right to possess the property after, for instance, the termination or violation of a lease contract.[2]


The nature of forcible entry and unlawful detainer also differs in relation to the demand of the owner to vacate the property. In an action of forcible entry, no previous demand to vacate is required by law before the filing of the action, while such demand is required in unlawful detainer.[3]


Moreover, an ejectment case shall also be distinguished from other actions to recover real property, namely accion publiciana or a plenary action for recovery of real right of possession when dispossession has lasted for more than one year, and accion reinvindicatoria or an action for recovery of ownership.[4]


Summary in nature


Both forcible entry and unlawful detainer are governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, regardless of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered.[5] Ejectment cases are thus cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), as the case may be.


With ejectment proceedings being summary in nature, the rigors of trial and formal presentation of evidence as required in ordinary civil actions are dispensed with and substituted merely by submission of the affidavit of the parties’ respective witnesses and a Position Paper summarizing their respective claims and defenses.


Under the Rules, within five (5) calendar days after the last responsive pleading is filed, the Branch Clerk of Court shall issue a Notice of Preliminary Conference, which shall be held within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of filing of such last responsive pleading.[6] Said Notice shall include the dates set for Preliminary Conference, Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM), and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), in the court’s discretion.[7]


After the issues have been joined at the Preliminary Conference, the court will issue a Preliminary Conference Order referring the parties to the mandatory CAM and JDR.[8] Within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt by the court of the Mediator’s Report or the JDR Report on the parties’ failure to reach an amicable settlement, the court shall render judgment.[9]


The ejectment case handled by the firm took one (1) year to complete, culminating in the client's recovery of his property and payment to him of accrued rentals and attorney's fees. Fortunately, the defendant no longer appealed the Court's judgment in favor of our client.


Winning an ejectment case


In the event that the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the award to the latter includes the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorney's fees and costs.[10] With regard to attorney’s fees, the Rules provide that the same shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00).


As to damages, case law imparts that the only damage that can be recovered in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property.[11] As ruled by the Supreme Court in Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation Inc., vs Mabalacat Institute Inc.:

The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession. Hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.[12]


As it stands, therefore, moral damages are generally not recoverable in ejectment cases.


Furthermore, under the Rules of Court, judgments in ejectment cases are immediately executory upon motion by the plaintiff, unless the defendant perfects an appeal, files a supersedeas bond in favor of the plaintiff as approved by the court, and periodically deposit the rentals becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. Otherwise, the writ of execution will issue upon motion of the plaintiff.[13]


The case of Spouses Chua and Chua Cho vs Court of Appeals instructs in this wise:


As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question. To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is pending the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being "ministerial and imperative."[14]


Ejectment and collection of sum of money


Another important thing to note in ejectment cases is that they cannot be properly joined with actions for collection of sum of money. As the Supreme Court elucidated in Lajave Agricultural Management and Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Spouses Javellana:


[An action for collection of sum of money] is an ordinary civil action requiring a full-blown trial, while an action for unlawful detainer is a special civil action which requires a summary procedure."


x x x


Insofar as the complaint for collection of sum of money is concerned, it is not a simple case of recovering the unpaid balance of rentals. It must be pointed out that there are several factors to consider if and when the collection of sum of money will prosper, i.e., the determination if indeed recovery of the alleged balance is proper, the correct amount of rental to be paid or recovered, the intention and/or agreement of the parties as to the terms of payment of rental in order to arrive at a correct amount, among others. Indeed, as correctly observed by the appellate court, the resolution of whether Lajave paid the correct rental fees and if there is a deficiency in the payment of rentals requires a full-blown trial through the submission of documentary and testimonial evidence by the parties which cannot be passed upon in a summary proceeding. (Emphasis supplied).[15]



We write this article to provide an overview about ejectment cases and the remedies for the recovery of possession of real property under the law. This article should not be taken as a form of legal advice. Should you need legal assistance on ejectment cases, please send an email to ryan@romanolaw.ph.

[1] Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court

[2] PLDT vs. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation, G.R. No. 214546, 09 October 2019

[3] Id.

[4] Regalado vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 202448, 13 December 2017

[5] Section 1(a), Rule 1, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, 11 April 2022

[6] Sec 10, supra.

[7] Id.

[8] Sec 10, Rule 1, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, 11

[9] Sec 14, supra.

[10] Section 17, Rule 70, Rules of Court

[11] Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation Inc., vs Mabalacat Institute Inc., G.R. No. 211563, 29 September 2021

[12] Id.

[13] Acbang vs. Hon. Luczon, et al., G.R. No. 164246, 15 January 2014

[14] Spouses Mariano Chua and Chua Cho, G.R. No. 113886, February 24, 1998

[15] Lajave Agricultural Management and Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Spouses Javellana, G.R. No. 223785, 07 November 2018

Comments


bottom of page