Photo from Pexels | Erik Mclean
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the case of Eversley Childs Sanitarium v. Sps. Barbarona, G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018, the Supreme Court held that an ejectment case only resolves the issue of who has the better right of possession over the property. The right of possession in this instance refers to actual possession, not legal possession. While a party may later be proven to have the legal right of possession by virtue of ownership, he or she must still institute an ejectment case to be able to dispossess an actual occupant of the property who refuses to vacate.
Under Rule 70, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, 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.
An accion interdictal is summary in nature, and is cognizable by the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. It comprises two distinct causes of action, namely, forcible entry (detentacion) and unlawful detainer (desahuico).
In forcible entry, one is deprived of the physical possession of real property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth, whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.
An action for forcible entry is distinguished from an unlawful detainer case, such that in the former, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the beginning, whereas in the latter action, the possession of the defendant is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. 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. (Javelosa v. Tapus et al., G.R. No. 204361, July 4, 2018)
Furthermore, under Section 16 of Rule 70, when the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
Any pronouncement made by the court over the issue of ownership in such cases is therefore merely provisional and is made only to determine the principal issue of possession de facto. It does not bar an action between the same parties regarding the title of the property. (De Mesa v. Pulutan, G.R. No. 255397, September 12, 2022).
These principles, in turn, are encapsulated in Section 18 of Rule 70, which states:
“Section 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not conclusive in actions involving title or ownership.– The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building. xxx.”
Related Articles:
- Coverage of the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts
- Prior Possession, NOT ownership matters in Forcible Entry Cases (Rico vs. Castillo et al., G.R. No. 215166)
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.