Special Civil Actions
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER (Asked in the 2000 Bar Exam in Relation to a Pending
Action for Specific Performance)
DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTION Forcible Entry
(a) Resorted to when a person is deprived of possession of any land or building by (1) force, (2) intimidation, (3) strategy, (4) threat, or (5) stealth.
(FISTS)
(c) Action must be for the restitution of possession of property together with damages and costs. [Rule 70, Sec. 1]
(d) The owners of a property have no authority to use force and violence to eject alleged usurpers who were in prior physical possession of it.
(e) They must file the appropriate action in court and should not take the law into their own hands.
[Laurora v. Sterling Technopark (2003)]
Unlawful Detainer
(a) Resorted to when a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld, after the period but after the interested parties filed their objections to the report/statement of agreement, the court, upon hearing, may:
(a) ACCEPT the commissioners’ report and render JUDGMENT based upon it.
(b) RECOMMIT the report to the commissioners for further report of facts if there is cause to do the same (c) SET ASIDE the report and APPOINT
new commissioners
(d) ACCEPT the report IN PART and REJECT it IN PART
(e) Make such order and render such judgment as shall effectuate a fair and just partition of the real estate or of its value, if the property is assigned or sold between the several owners thereof.
[Rule 69, Sec. 7]
(c) Must be brought at any time within 1 year after the unlawful withholding of possession in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person unlawfully withholding possession or persons claiming under them.
(d) Action must be for the restitution of possession of property together with damages and costs. [Rule 70.1]
Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer Possession becomes
unlawful right from the very start (i.e. from the time of entry) as he acquires possession by FISTS.
Possession was lawful at first but later becomes illegal, as when the lease contract has expired and the lessee refuses to vacate the premises despite demand.
The deprivation of physical possession of land and building is effected through force, intimidation, strategy, termination of the right to hold possession under any contract, express or whether the defendant’s right to possess has expired or not.
Previous demand upon defendant to vacate not premises until deprived thereof.
The plaintiff need not be in prior physical possession.
1-year period counted from date of actual entry on the land.
1-year period counted from date of last demand or last letter of demand.
DISTINGUISHED FROM ACCION PUBLICIANA AND ACCION REINVINDICATORIA (desahucio) where the defendant’s possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess,
(d) both of which must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry to the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer,
(e) in the proper MTC or MeTC Nature:
(a) special civil action involving realty;
(b) subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure;
[Rule 70, Sec. 3]
(c) under the original exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts;
(d) nature of the action is determined by the allegation of the complaint and the character of the relief sought; [Abrin v. Campos (1991)]
(e) one co-owner may institute the action.
Accion Publiciana
A plenary action for recovery of the right to possess and which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when the dispossession has lasted for proper regional trial court.
It is thus an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. [Javier v. Veridiano (1994)]
HOW TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION IN ACCION PUBLICIANA AND ACCION REINVINDICATORIA
A/P and A/R are actions involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein (a) RTC has jurisdiction where the assessed value of
the property exceeds P20K or, in MM, P50k (b) MTC has jurisdiction if the assessed value does
not exceed said amounts
WHO MAY INSTITUTE THE ACTION AND WHEN; AGAINST WHOM THE ACTION MAY BE MAINTAINED
Who may File, When, Against Whom Who
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
When
At any time within 1 year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession in the proper MTC
Against Whom
The person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, OR any person or persons claiming under them [Rule 70, Sec. 1]
PLEADINGS ALLOWED
Pleadings must be verified. [Rule 70, Sec. 4]
Allowed pleadings [Rule 70, Sec. 4]:
(a) Complaint
(b) Compulsory Counterclaim pleaded in the answer (c) Cross-claim pleaded in the answer
(d) Answer
ACTION ON THE COMPLAINT
From the examination of the allegations in the complaint and such evidence as may be attached thereto, the court may:
(a) DISMISS the case outright based on the grounds for dismissal for ordinary civil actions apparent in the complaint, or
(b) ISSUE SUMMONS, if no ground for dismissal is found. [Rule 70, Sec. 5]
Cases requiring referral to conciliation, where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after that requirement have been complied with. [Rule 70, Sec. 12]
WHEN DEMAND IS NECESSARY
In cases of unlawful detainer, the action by the lessor shall be commenced only after:
(a) demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or
(b) by serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or
(c) by posting such notice on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after 15 days in the case of land or 5 days in the case of buildings. [Rule 70, Sec. 2]
Exceptions (prior demand not required):
(a) Where purpose of the action is to terminate the lease by reason of the expiry of its term, and is not for failure to pay rentals or comply with the terms of the lease contract. [Arquelada v. Philippine Veterans Bank (2000) ]
(b) When the purpose of the suit is not for ejectment but for the enforcement of the terms of the contract. [Guanson v. Ban (1946)]
(c) When the defendant is not a tenant but a mere intruder. [id]
Jakihaca v. Aquino (1990): Demand upon a tenant may be oral.
Dakudao v. Consolacion (1983): A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer may be instituted against him.
Muñoz v. CA (1992): This rule as to tolerance does not hold true in a case where there was forcible entry at the start, but the lawful possessor did not attempt to oust the intruder for over 1 year, and only thereafter filed forcible entry suit following demand to vacate.
Refugia v. CA (1996): Tolerance must be presented right from the start of possession sought to be recovered to categorize a cause of action as one of unlawful detainer.
Zobel v. Abreu (1956): When failure to pay rent or comply with the condition of lease is the ground for ejectment, plaintiff should give 2 demands (which may be embodied in 1 demand letter):
(a) demand to pay rental or comply with conditions of the lease, and if this is not complied with, (b) demand to vacate
Yap v. Cruz (1992): Notice and demand to vacate is required on a lease on a month-to-month period to render effective the termination of the lease upon the expiration of the month, and prevent an implied renewal of the lease.
Penas, Jr. v. CA (1994): An alternative demand to either renew the expired lease contract at a higher rental rate or vacate is not a definite demand to vacate and therefore, insufficient basis for the filing of an action for unlawful detainer.
Uy v. CA (1989): Refusal to collect or accept rentals is not a defense. There must be consignation.
Procedure
Filing of complaint.
After the court has examined the allegations in the complaint and supporting evidence attached to the same, the court may:
(a) DISMISS the case outright based on the grounds for dismissal for ordinary civil actions apparent in the complaint, or
(b) ISSUE SUMMONS, if no ground for dismissal is found. [Rule 70, Sec. 5]
Cases requiring referral to conciliation, where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after that requirement have been complied with. [Rule 70, Sec. 12]
The defendant shall file his ANSWER and serve a copy of it to the plaintiff within 10 days from service of summons. [Rule 70, Sec. 6]
Failure of the defendant to answer within the period provided above shall give power to the court, motu propio or on motion, to render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein. [Rule 70, Sec. 7]
Affirmative and negative defenses and cross-claims and compulsory countercross-claims not pleaded in the answer are deemed waived.
Exception: lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Answers to the counterclaims or cross-claims shall be served and filed within 10 days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
Where there is a defense of tenancy, there must be a preliminary hearing on the question of tenancy relations. [Bayog v. Natino (1996)] If there is a prima facie showing of tenancy, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction (jurisdiction belongs to the DARAB). [Baranda v.
Padios (1987)]
Not later than 30 days after the last answer is filed, a PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE shall be held.
Rule 18 applicable. Effects of failure to appear:
(a) When the plaintiff does not appear
(1) It shall be a cause for dismissal of his complaint
(2) All cross-claims shall be dismissed (3) The defendant who appears in the
absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to the judgment on his counterclaim (b) When the defendant does not appear
The plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment (This is true when there is only one defendant or when all of the defendants did not appear)
General rule: No postponement of the preliminary conference shall be granted.
Exception: Highly meritorious grounds and without prejudice to such sanctions as the court in the exercise of sound discretion may impose on the movant. [Rule 70, Sec. 8]
The court shall issue an ORDER stating matters taken up during the preliminary conference within 5 days after the termination of the same.
Contents of the Order:
(a) Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, and if so, terms thereof;
(b) The stipulations or admissions entered into by the parties;
(c) Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and the stipulations and admissions made by the parties, judgment may be rendered without the need of further proceedings, in which event the judgment shall be rendered within 30 days from issuance of the order;
(d) A clear specification of material facts which remain controverted;
Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of the case. [Rule 70, Sec. 9]
The parties shall submit 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 within 10 days from receipt of the order. [Rule 70, Sec. 10]
Affidavits required to be submitted shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in evidence, and shall show their competence to testify to the matters stated therein.
Violation of this requirement may subject the party or the counsel who submits the same to disciplinary action and shall be cause to expunge the inadmissible affidavit or portion thereof from the records. [Rule 70, Sec. 14]
Judgment
General Rule: The court shall render judgment within 30 days from the date of its receipt of the affidavits and position papers OR the expiration of the period for filing the same.
[Rule 70, Sec. 11]
Exception: Should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may during the 30-day period issue an ORDER specifying the matters to be clarified and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within 10 days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within 15 days after receipt of the last affidavit or the expiration of the period for filing the same. [Ibid.]
The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain time for the rendition of the judgment. [Id.]
If the trial court finds that the allegations of the complaint are TRUE, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for
(a) restitution of the premises,
(b) the just sum due as arrears of rent or reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises.
(c) attorney’s fees and costs. [Rule 70, Sec. 17]
If the court finds that the allegations of the plaintiffs are NOT TRUE, it shall render judgment for the defendant to recover his costs. [Ibid.]
The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only, and it shall not in any way affect the title or ownership of the land or building. Hence, such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties with respect to the title of the land or building.
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate RTC. [Rule 70, Sec. 18]
Execution of judgment
General Rule: If judgment is rendered against a defendant, execution shall issue immediately. [Rule 70, Secs. 19 and 21]
Exception: Appeal has been duly perfected by the defendant and bond has been posted.
Lu v. Siapno (2000): Although immediately executory, the judge should not order immediate execution in his decision.
Kaw v. Anunciacion (1995): There must be notice of the judgment and a motion with notice to the adverse party.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Preliminary injunction
The court may grant preliminary injunction in accordance with Rule 58 to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff.
A possessor deprived of his possession may move for a preliminary mandatory injunction within 5 days to restore him in his possession of the property. The court then shall decide the motion within 30 days from the filing thereof. [Rule 70, Sec. 15]
RESOLVING DEFENSE OF OWNERSHIP
When ownership is raised as a defense, the court may resolved the issue of ownership but only under these 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 [Rule 70, Sec.
16].
When the defendant asserts ownership over the property, the inferior court is not divested of its jurisdiction [Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia, Inc v Dimatulac (2003)]
The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only, and it shall not in any way affect the title or ownership of the land or building.
Hence, such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties with respect to the title of the land or building. [Rule 70, Sec. 18]
Matters Not Constituting Prejudicial Question to Ejectment [Arcal v. Court of Appeals (1998)]
(a) Injunction suits instituted in the RTC by defendants in ejectment actions in the municipal trial courts or other courts of the first level [Nacorda v. Yatco (1996)] do not abate the latter, and neither do proceedings on consignation of rentals [Lim Si v. Lim (1956)]
(b) An ‘accion publiciana’ does not suspend an ejectment suit against the plaintiff in the former [Ramirez v. Bleza (1981)].
(c) A ‘writ of possession case’ where ownership is concededly the principal issue before the Regional Trial Court does not preclude nor bar the execution of the judgment in an unlawful detainer suit where the only issue involved is the material possession or possession de facto of the premises [Heirs of F. Guballa, Sr. v CA (1988)].
(d) An action for quieting of title to the property is not a bar to an ejectment suit involving the same property [Quimpo v. de la Victoria (1972)].
(e) Suit for specific performance with damages do not affect ejectment actions (e.g., to compel renewal of lease contract) [Desamito v. Cuyegkeng (1966)]; (Asked in the 2000 Bar Exam)
(f) An action for reformation of instrument (e.g. from deed of absolute sale to one of sale with pacto de retro ) does not suspend an ejectment suit between the same parties [Judith v. Abragan (1975)].
(g) An action for reconveyance of property or ‘accion reivindicatoria’ also has no effect on ejectment suits regarding the same property [Del Rosario v.
Jimenez (1963)].
(h) Neither do suits for annulment of sale, or title, or document affecting property operate to abate ejectment actions respecting the same property [Salinas v. Navarro - annulment of deed of sale with assumption of mortgage and/or to declare the same an equitable mortgage (1983); Ang Ping v.
RTC - annulment of sale of title (1987); Caparros v.
C.A. - annulment of title (1989); Dante v. Sison - annulment of sale with damages 174 SCRA 517;
Galgala v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. - annulment of document (1989)].
HOW TO STAY THE IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT General Rule: If judgment is rendered against a defendant, execution shall issue immediately. [Rule 70, Sec. 19 and 70.21]
Exception: Appeal has been duly perfected by the defendant and bond has been posted.
Procedure for staying the execution of judgment:
(a) defendant perfects his appeal in due time;
(b) defendant files a sufficient supersedeas bond approved by the Municipal Trial Court; and (c) 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, on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month.
[Rule 70, Sec. 19]
BUT upon motion of the plaintiff within 10 days from the perfection of the appeal to the RTC, the court may still issue a preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the plaintiff in possession if the court is satisfied that the defendant’s appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that the appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious. [Rule 70, Sec. 20]
SUMMARY PROCEDURE, PROHIBITED PLEADINGS Prohibited pleadings and motions [Rule 70, Sec. 13]:
(a) Motion to dismiss Exceptions:
(1) Motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
(2) Motion to dismiss for failure to comply with section 12 (referral to Lupon for conciliation) (b) Motion for a Bill of Particulars
(c) Motion for New Trial
(d) Motion for reconsideration of a judgment (e) Motion for reopening of trial
(f) Petition for relief from judgment
(g) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or other papers
(h) Memoranda
(i) Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court
(j) Motion to declare defendant in default (k) Dilatory motions for postponement (l) Reply
(m) Third-party complaints (n) Interventions
CONTEMPT