Ejectment Case: Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer

An ejectment case is a summary proceeding designed to provide expeditious means to

protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved (Barrientos v. Rapal,
G.R. No. 169594, July 20, 2011). It is expeditious as it is governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, a special rule where extra pleadings and motions (other than the Complaint and
Answer), otherwise available in an ordinary civil action, are prohibited precisely to insulate it
from unnecessary delays. The main issue to be resolved here is the issue of possession or the
right to hold possession.
If youre a lessor of real property, you may, if you havent already, have to resort to the
remedy of ejectment in cases where a lessee withholds possession of leased property after the
latters right to hold the same has already terminated, as where lessee has failed to pay rental, or
has failed to comply with the conditions of the lease contract, in which case it is called Unlawful
Detainer.
It is also available where a present possessor has held possession of a subject property at
the tolerance of the owner or the one entitled to its possession, and thereafter refused, after
demand to vacate has been made upon him, or continues his possession thereof. In this case, an
inceptively lawful possession has become unlawful, when the tolerated possessor refused to
return the property upon demand by the rightful possessor or owner. Anyone, whose stay in the
property is merely tolerated, is bound by an implied obligation to vacate and return the same to,
upon demand of, the rightful possessor or owner.
Note that even the owner of the property may be sued for ejectment when he deprives
another of lawful possession, as in a case of a lessor depriving or ousting a lessee, who has been
compliant with his obligations under a lease contract, of possession thereof.
Another species of ejectment is Forcible Entry. It is the same special proceeding as
Unlawful Detainer, but the means whereby the lawful possessor or owner of the subject property
has been deprived thereof are: Force, Intimidation, Strategy, Threat, and/or Stealth (FISTS).
Anyone who has been ousted of possession to a real property by a "strong hand" using any of the
means mentioned, may resort to this summary remedy to restore him immediately to possession.
In both cases, ownership is not imperative in order for a plaintiff to acquire legal
personality to sue, as again, the issue is mere right to possession. In unlawful detainer it is
indispensable or jurisdictional that a demand to pay rental or comply with the conditions of the
lease and vacate is made before an action may properly be filed. Accordingly, absence of such
prior demand could lead to the dismissal of the case. However, the same is not true in forcible
entry.
In both cases, resort to barangay conciliation is condition precedent, meaning that the
opposing party may raise as objection the fact that the dispute has not been referred to the
barangay authorities for conciliation, and the same may be ground for the dismissal of the action.
However, it is not jurisdictional, meaning that it may be waived by such opposing party. It is
deemed waived when the opposing party failed to timely object to the fact of its (barangay
conciliation) absence.

Both actions must be brought (filed in court) within one year. The period of one year is
reckoned from, in the case of forcible entry, the date of actual possession if the deprivation or the
ground for the action is force, intimidation, or threat; and the date of discovery and prohibition if
the deprivation or ground for the action is strategy or stealth. In unlawful detainer, the period of
one year is counted from the date of last demand.
In the case of forcible entry, the possession is unlawful/illegal from the very beginning,
while in unlawful detainer, it is inceptively lawful until the defendant refused and failed to
vacate, after demand is made upon him by the plaintiff. Demand is made upon the termination of
the defendant's right to hold possession of the subject property, either by expiration of contract,
breach of terms of the contract, or when an owner who tolerated the defendant's stay has
manifested its intention to use the property effectively ending the tolerance.

In both cases, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction and/or temporary

restraining order (TRO) is available under the provision of Rule 70, on forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, and in relation to Rule 58, on preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order.Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Sample

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1
KRUL ACOSTA,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 98765

FOR: Unlawful Detainer

MEGAN VITUG,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers:
1. That the plaintiff, KRUL ACOSTA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with residence
and postal address at 123 Benitez Street, Manila;
2. That the defendant, MEGAN VITUG, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with
residence and postal address at 456 Modesto Street, Manila, where they may be served
with summons and other court processes;
3. The plaintiff is the owner of a land over which an apartment had been constructed located
654 San Pedro Street, Manila;
4. By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiff leased unto the defendant the aforesaid
apartment for a consideration of P5,000.00 a month as rental to be paid within the first
ten (10) days of each month starting November 3, 2011;
5. The defendant failed to pay the agreed rental for several months starting February 19,
2012 up to the present;

6. On May 3, 2012, the plaintiff sent a letter of demand to vacate the apartment which was
received by the defendant as shown in the registry return receipt hereto attached as Annex
A;
7. Despite said letter of demand which was repeated by oral demands, the defendant failed
and still refused to pay the agreed amount of rentals and to vacated the apartment;
8. By reason of failure of the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the unpaid rentals,
the plaintiff was compelled to file this complaint engaging the services of counsel in the
amount of P10,000.00.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable
Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant:
1. To vacate the subject premises;
2. To pay the amount of P5,000.00 per month as compensation for the reasonable use of the
subject premises until they finally vacate the said premises;
3. To pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.
City of Manila, September 24, 2012.
REYES, TOLENTINO AND CRUZ LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 123, Victoria Tower I
Taft Avenue, Manila

By:
Louise Reyes
Roll of Attorney No. 98765
IBP No. 12345/2-5-12/Manila
PTR No. 87654/12-22-11/Manila

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines )
City of Manila
) S.S.

I, KRUL ACOSTA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and resident of 123 Benitez Street,
Manila, after having been duly sworn to in accord Nance with law do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint and have read the
allegations contained therein;
3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my own knowledge and
authentic records;
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
or agency where the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have
been filed;
6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to
comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 24th of September
2012, in the City of Manila.

KRUL ACOSTA
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of September, 2012, in the
City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers License No. 12345 issued by the Land
Transportation Office on April 8, 2012 at the City of Manila.
ATTY. NO CASE
Notary Public
My Commission Expires Dec. 31, 2012
Roll of Attorney No. 34567
IBP No. 12345/2-5-12/Manila
PTR No. 87654/12-22-11/Manila

Doc. No. ________

Page No. _______

Book No. _______
Series of 2012.
Posted 25th September 2012 by MRC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1
MICHAEL BADIRRI,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 12345

EDIL FRANCISCO,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------x
ANSWER

1.
2.

3.
4.

COMES NOW, the defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers:
That he ADMITS the contents of paragraph 2 only insofar as his personal circumstances are
concerned;
That he ADMITS his obligation of paying the monthly installments cited in paragraph 3 of the
complaint, but DENY the rest of the allegations therein as said defendants obligation to plaintiff is not for the
exercise of a right to repurchase but for the amortization of a loan that he acquired from the plaintiff at an
interest of 12% per annum;
That defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the
averments in paragraph 4 of the complaint;
That defendant does not, at the moment, have all the records of payments he made to plaintiff, so that
he also does not have information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the
complaint and, therefore, DENY them.
WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs against the
plaintiff.
Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
City of Manila, September 27, 2012.
GACUTAN AND SALAZAR LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258 The Tower
Malate, Manila
By:
ARVIN GACUTAN
Roll No. 98765
IBP No, 12345/1-3-2012/Manila
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2012/Manila

Copy furnished:
ATTY. FRETTI LAUREL
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 1234 Laurel Building
Sampaloc, Manila
EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing ANSWER was served to plaintiffs counsel by registered mail due to time and
distance constraints and for lack of the undersigneds staff who can serve the same in person.
ARVIN GACUTAN