RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL
DETAINER

(Accion Interdictal)
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. (1a)
JURISDICTION: Municipal Trial Courts
DEFINITION
Jose Casilang, Sr., substituted by his heirs, namely:
Felicidad Casilang, et.al., vs Rosario Casilang-DizonG.R. No.
180269 February 20, 2013

18

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Accion Interdictal, unlawful detainer and forcible entry are the two
forms of ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real
property.
Encarnacion vs Amigo (September 15, 2006)
GR No. 169793
Accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding which may be
either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer
(desahucio), which is a summary action for recovery of physical
possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more than
one year, and should be brought in the proper inferior court.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
It consists of depriving a person of possession of land or building for
a period of time not exceeding one year by force, intimidation,
strategy threat or stealth.
(Section 1 Rule 70, Rules of Court)

Nenita Quality Foods Corporation vs Crisostomo Galabo

G.R. No. 174191 January 30, 2013
In a forcible entry case, a party who can prove prior possession can
recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever
may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior
possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain
on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.
He cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror -- not even by its
owners.

19

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Unlawful withholding by a person from another for not more than
one year of the possession of any land or building after the
expiration of termination of the right to hold such possession by
virtue of a contract, express or implied.
(Section 1 Rule 70, Rules of Court)
Spouses Armando and Remedios Silverio vs Spouses Ricardo
and Evelyn Marcelo
G.R. No. 184079 April 17, 2013
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property
from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or
termination of his right to hold possession under any contract,
express or

implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful

detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or

termination of the right to possess.
In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical
or material possession of the property involved, independent of any
claim of ownership by any of the parties. Where the issue of
ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon
the same in order to determine who has the right to possess the
property. The adjudication is, however, merely provisional and would
not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving
title to the property.
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
Drilon v Gaurana (April 30, 1987) GR No. L- 35482

20

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

It must be stated that the purpose of an action of forcible entry and

detainer is that, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the
property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned
out by strong hand, violence or terror. In affording this remedy of
restitution the object of the statute is to prevent breaches of the
peace and criminal disorder which would ensue from the withdrawal
of the remedy, and the reasonable hope such withdrawal would
create that some advantage must accrue to those persons who,
believing themselves entitled to the possession of property, resort to
force to gain possession rather than to some appropriate action in
the courts to assert their claims. This is the philosophy at the
foundation of all these actions of forcible entry and detainer which
are designed to compel the party out of possession to respect and
resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his.
LEGAL BASIS
Article 536 of the Civil Code
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or
intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He
who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of
the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if
the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
PURPOSE
Holy Trinity Realty Development Corporation vs Spouses
Abacan
G. R. No. 183858 April 17, 2013

21

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

It is well-settled that the sole issue in ejectment cases is physical or

material possession of the subject property, independent of any
claim of ownership by the parties. The argument of respondentspouses that they subsequently acquired ownership of the subject
property cannot be considered as a supervening event that will bar
the execution of the

questioned judgment, as unlawful detainer

does not deal with the issue of ownership.

Juanita Ermitano represented by her Attorney-in-fact Tsa
Belo Ermitano vs
Lailanie Paglas
G.R. 174436 January 23, 2013
In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is the
physical

or

material

possession

of

the

property

involved,

independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants.

Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the
courts may pass upon the same in order to determine who has the
right to possess the property. The adjudication is, however, merely
provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the
same parties involving title to the property.
Salandanan vs Sps Mendez (March 13, 2009)
GR No. 160280
Forcible

entry

and

unlawful

detainer

cases

are

summary

proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of

protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the
property involved.
WHEN DO YOU FILE AN ACTION
At any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or
withholding of possession. (Section 1, Rule 70)

22

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Commencement of one year period

Forcible Entry
The one year period is

Unlawful Detainer

counted from date of entry or

One year period should be

taking of possession by force,

counted from the demand

intimidation, threat, strategy

to vacate

or stealth
In cases of stealth, the one
year period is counted from
the time of discovery
PARTIES TO THE ACTIONS
Who may bring action (Section 1, Rule 70)

Forcible Entry

Unlawful Detainer
Any landlord, vendor,
vendee or other person

Anyone deprived of the

possession, of any land or
building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy
or stealth

against whom the

possession of any land or
building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration
or determination of the right
to hold possession by virtue
of any contract, express or
implied; OR
The legal representatives or
assignees of any such
landlord, vendor, vendee, or

23

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

any other person.

Parties in Forcible Entry

a. Plaintiff the one deprived of possession by means of force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.
b. Defendant the person who unlawfully deprives another of
possession of a property

Parties in Unlawful Detainer

a. Plaintiff lessor, vendor, vendee, or the legal representatives
or assigns of any such 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. (Section 1, Rule 70)
b. Defendant persons unlawfully depriving or withholding
possession or any person claiming under them .

REQUIREMENT FOR THE EJECTMENT SUIT TO BE FILED

Section 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after
demand. Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the
lesser shall be commenced only after demand to pay or
comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is
made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such
demand upon the person found on the premises if no person

24

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith

after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in
the case of buildings.
A. VENDOR AS PLAINTIFF
Larano v Calendacion (June 19, 2007)
GR No. 158231
In unlawful detainer, the possession was originally lawful but
became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to
possess; hence, the issue of rightful possession is decisive for, in
such action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiffs
cause of action is the termination of the defendants right to
continue in possession.
Applied to the present case, petitioner, as vendor, must comply
with two requisites for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit: (a)
there must be failure to pay the installment due or comply with the
conditions of the Contract to Sell; and (b) there must be demand
both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods specified in
Section 2 of Rule 70, namely: 15 days in case of land and 5 days
in case of buildings. The first requisite refers to the existence of the
cause of action for unlawful detainer, while the second refers to the
jurisdiction requirement of demand in order that said cause of action
may be pursued.
Both demands to pay installment due or adhere to the terms of
the Contract to Sell and to vacate are necessary to make the vendee
deforciant in order that an ejectment suit may be filed. It is the
vendor's demand for the vendee to vacate the premises and the
vendee's refusal to do so which makes unlawful the withholding of

25

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

the possession. Such refusal violates the vendor's right of possession

giving rise to an action for unlawful detainer. However, prior to the
institution of such action, a demand from the vendor to pay the
installment due or comply with the conditions of the Contract to Sell
and to vacate the premises is required under the aforequoted rule.
Thus, mere failure to pay the installment due or violation of the
terms of the Contract to Sell does not automatically render a
person's possession unlawful. Furthermore, the giving of such
demand must be alleged in the complaint; otherwise, the MTC
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case.

B. VENDEE AS PLAINTIFF
Javelosa v CA (December 10, 1996)
GR No. 124292
The purchaser at public auction is entitled to possession of the
property. To obtain possession, the vendee or purchaser may either
ask for a writ of possession or bring an appropriate independent
action, such as a suit for ejectment, which private respondents did.
The RTC case assailing the public auction sale of the property and
seeking annulment of mortgages did not preclude the filing of an
ejectment case against petitioner. We have consistently ruled that
the pendency of an action for annulment of sale and reconveyance
(which necessarily involves the issue of ownership) may not be
successfully pleaded in abatement of an action for ejectment, the
issue in the latter being merely physical possession.
Other case doctrines:

26

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Boy v CA (April 14, 2004)

GR No. 125088
Upon delivery of the property subject to sale, the vendee has the
right to the material possession of the property and can then sue as
a plaintiff in an unlawful detainer case against the vendor.
Oronce v CA (October 19, 1998)
GR No. 125766
In an equitable mortgage, the mortgagor or the seller still has the
right of possession over the property under the principle that you
cannot acquire the property under the principle that you cannot
acquire the property without benefit of public sale or foreclosure;
otherwise, it is pactum commissorium.
So in a mortgage situation, a deed of sale with assumption of
mortgage which turns out to be an equitable mortgage, the vendee
has no right to file an action for unlawful detainer because the seller
as mortgagor has the right to possess the property.
NATURE
Section 3. Summary procedure. Except in cases covered by
the agricultural tenancy laws or when the law otherwise
expressly provides, all actions for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered, shall be governed by the
summary procedure hereunder provided.
Salandanan v Sps Mendez (March 13, 2009)
GR No. 160280

27

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

It is a "time procedure" designed to remedy the situation. Stated in

another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in
nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of
preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly
continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring the
maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the
party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long
waiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law
into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. And since
the law discourages continued wrangling over possession of
property for it involves perturbation of social order which must be
restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of
procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly
and carefully be avoided.
To summarize:

Nature if the action

Both actions are possessory actions
Both involves real properties
Summary in nature, which is governed

by

Summary Rules of Procedure

Section 4. Pleadings allowed. The only pleadings allowed
to be filed are the complaint, compulsory counterclaim and
cross-claim pleaded in the answer, and the answers thereto.
All pleadings shall be verified.
PLEADINGS ALLOWED
1. Complaint Answer
2. Answer

28

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

3. Cross-claims
4. Counterclaims
RATIONALE FOR THE RULE
This is consistent with the summary nature of the ejectment cases.
The affidavits should be within the personal knowledge of the affiant.

Section 5. Action on complaint. The court may, from an

examination of the allegations in the complaint and such
evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case
outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil
action which are apparent therein. If no ground for dismissal
is found, it shall forthwith issue summons.
Jurisdictional requirements that must be alleged in the
complaint

Forcible Entry
Prior physical possession

Unlawful Detainer
Prior demand to vacate

Deprivation of prior physical

possession by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy
or stealth
Action was filed within one

Action was filed within one

year from such deprivation

year from demand was made

What is meant by the word possession

Salandanan v Sps Mendez (March 13, 2009)
GR No. 160280

29

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

In ejectment cases, the word possession means nothing more than

actual physical possession, not legal possession, in the sense
contemplated in civil law.

The only issue in such cases is who is

entitled to the physical or material possession of the property

involved, independently of any claim of ownership set forth by any
of the party-litigants. It does not even matter if the party's title to
the property is questionable.
Instance where there are prior physical possession
Arbizo v Santillan (February 26, 2008)
GR No. 171315
Fencing the area immediately after purchase constitutes prior
physical possession.
What is meant by force
Baes v. Lutheran Church in the Philippines
GR No. 142308
In order to constitute force that would justify a forcible entry case,
the trespasser does not have to institute a state of war. The act of
going to the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom
necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property which is
all that is necessary and sufficient to show that the action is based
on the provisions of Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
There is force when the guards are present to restrict the mobility of
the occupants.
David v Cordova (July 28, 2005)
GR No. 152992

30

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

If a trespasser enters upon land in open daylight, under the very

eyes of the person already clothed with lawful possession, but
without the consent of the latter, and there plants himself and
excludes such prior possessor from the property, the action of
forcibly entry and detainer can unquestionably be maintained, even
though no force is used by the trespasser other than such as is
necessarily implied from the mere acts of planting himself on the
ground and excluding the other party.
DEMAND TO VACATE
Actual word vacate is not necessary, as long as there are
other terms definitively implying that the tenant should vacate.
Golden Gate Realty v IAC (July 31, 1987)
GR No. 74289
But the court feels that there is no necessity that such a word
"vacate" or a phrase containing the word "vacate" must have to be
so stated categorically in the complaint. It could be gleaned from
the complaint that the plaintiff, through its counsel "gave notice to
the defendant to pay the sum of P18,000.00 within five (5) days
from receipt of his letter and failing to do so a case of ejectment
would be filed against him."Such allegation substantially connotes
that warning is given to the defendant that in case he fails to pay
the amount demanded of him as rentals in arrears, then he has to
vacate the premises. There is no necessity of so categorically
stating the word "vacate" or the phrase containing the word
"vacate" the premises in the allegation in the complaint.
However, the doctrine that the exact word vacate is
not necessary to be stated is not applicable where no

31

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

statement that is an unequivocal or even an implied demand

on the defendant to vacate.
La Campana Food Products v CA (June 4, 1993)
GR No. L-88246
The January 20, 1986 letter of La Campana to Cascade, however, is
rather ambiguous. It warned that upon failure of Cascade to pay the
rentals and unpaid water bill, "we may forward this matter to our
legal counsel for proper action thereof." We do not see in this
statement an unequivocal or even an implied demand on the
defendant to vacate the leased premises. The doctrine covered in
the Golden Gate case is therefore not applicable.
The certificate to file action cannot cure the lack of demand
to vacate.
Bandoy v CA (July 19, 1989)
GR No. 77133
The defect was not cured because no evidence of a prior demand to
vacate was presented in the trial court. The affidavit of Empaynado
relied upon by the trial judge to the effect that: "na ako ang
tinutukoy ni Marciano Tamis Bandoy dahil di umano'y sa di
magandang asal namin na gusto niyang paalisin sa kanyang
extension", does not prove that the spouses demanded that he
vacate the premises. What Empaynado admitted in the said affidavit
was that the spouses intended to expel him out of the premises
("gusto niyang paalisin') but has not actually or definitely demanded
that he vacate the premises. An intention to oust is different from an
actually or definitely demanded to vacate. It is the latter which
confers jurisdiction upon the municipal court.

32

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Possession by tolerance
Dela Cruz v CA (December 6, 2006)
GR No. 139442
A person who occupies the land of another at the latters tolerance
or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily
bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand,
failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy
against them. The status of the defendant is analogous to that of a
lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose
occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner. In such a case, the
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted
from the date of the demand to vacate.
SECTION 6. Answer. Within ten (10) days from service of
summons,

the

defendant

complaint

and

serve

shall
copy

file

his

thereof

answer

on

the

to

the

plaintiff.

Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein shall

be deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims
not asserted in the answer shall be considered barred. The
answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be served and
filed within ten (10) days from service of the answer in which
they are pleaded.
In case the defendant was issued summons, he should file his
answer to the complaint within ten (10) days from service of such
summons. The period to file an answer is mandatory. To make the

33

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

same directive will forfeit the essence of summary procedure. In

other words, to admit a late answer is to put a premium on dilatory
measures, the very mischief that the rules seek to redress
Affirmative and negative defenses of the defendant should be
pleaded in his answer. Otherwise, they are deemed waived except
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Also, cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims should be asserted
in the defendant's answer. Otherwise, they are deemed barred.
In case the defendant asserted cross-claims and compulsory
counterclaims in his answer, the plaintiff should file his answer to
such cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims within ten (10)
days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
SECTION 7. Effect of failure to answer. Should the
defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period
above provided, the court motu proprio or on motion of the
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the
facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed
for therein. The court may in its discretion reduce the
amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed for being
excessive or otherwise unconscionable, without prejudice to
the applicability of Section 3 (c), Rule 9 if there are two or
more defendants. (6, RSP)
In case the defendant failed to file his answer to the complaint within
ten (10) days, the court motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff,
shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in
the complaint, however, limited only to what is prayed for therein.

34

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

The court has discretion to reduce any amount of damages and

attorney's

fees

unconscionable.

claimed
This

is

for

being

without

excessive

prejudice,

or

however,

otherwise
to

the

applicability of Section 3 (c), Rule 9 if there are two or more

defendants.
Rule 9, Section 3 states:
(c) Effect of partial default. When a pleading asserting a claim
states a common cause of action against several defending parties,
some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try
the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render
judgment upon the evidence presented. (4a, R18)
Similar Provision in The Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure and a Related Case
Dr. Luna vs. Judge Mirafuente
A. M. No. MTJ-05-1610 September 26, 2005
Sections 5 and 6 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
provide:
Sec. 5. Answer. Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the
defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy
thereof on the plaintiff. xxx
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to
answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court,
motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as
may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited
to what is prayed for therein: Provided, however, That the court may
in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorneys fees

35

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This is

without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants.
The word "shall" in the above-quoted sections of the 1991 Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure underscores their mandatory character.
Giving the provisions a directory application would subvert the
nature of the Rule and defeat its objective of expediting the
adjudication of the suits covered thereby. To admit a late answer is
to put a premium on dilatory maneuvers the very mischief that the
Rule seeks to redress.
In the present case, respondent gave a liberal interpretation of the
above-said Rule. Liberal interpretation or construction of the law or
rules, however, is not a free commodity that may be availed of in all
instances under the cloak of rendering justice. Liberality in the
interpretation and application of Rules applies only in proper cases
and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that
litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every
case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
SECTION 8. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties.
Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a
preliminary conference shall be held. The provisions of Rule
18 on

pre-trial

shall be

applicable to

the

preliminary

conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this

Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary
conference shall be cause for the dismissal of his complaint.

36

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff

shall

be

entitled

to

judgment

on

his

counterclaim

in

accordance with the next preceding section. All cross-claims

shall be dismissed. (7, RSP)
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall
likewise be entitled to judgment in accordance with the next
preceding section. This procedure shall not apply where one
of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of
action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at
the preliminary conference.
No postponement of the preliminary conference shall be
granted except for highly meritorious grounds and without
prejudice to such sanctions as the court in the exercise of
sound discretion may impose on the movant. (n)
The court shall held a preliminary conference not later than thirty
(30) days after the last answer is filed. The preliminary conference
serves the purpose of a possible amicable settlement. Rule 18 is
applicable to preliminary conference, provided, the same is not
inconsistent with this Rule 70.
If the plaintiff failed to appear in the scheduled preliminary
conference, his complaint will be dismissed. In case the defendant
appears while the plaintiff is absent, the former shall be entitled to
judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with Section 7, Rule 70.
However, all cross-claims of the defendant shall be dismissed.
In case the defendant fail to appear while the plaintiff is present, the
latter is entitled to judgment in accordance with Section 7, Rule 70.
However, this rule shall not apply where one of two or more

37

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

defendants sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded

a common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference. The
presence of one of the defendants will benefit the defendants who
are absent.
The preliminary conference shall not be postponed except only for
highly meritorious grounds and without prejudice to such sanctions
as the court in the exercise of sound discretion may impose on the
movant. This is in connection with the essence of a summary
procedure in preventing delay.

Similar Provision in The Revised Rules on Summary

Procedure and Related Cases
Murphy Chu vs. Hon. Capellan
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779 July 16, 2012
The relevant background facts shows that the unlawful detainer case
against the complainants was filed on March 22, 2007 and the
complainants filed their answer thereto on March 30, 2007. Under
Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, a
preliminary conference should be held not later than thirty (30) days
after the last answer is filed.
The respondent set the case for preliminary conference only on June
24, 2008, i.e., at a time way beyond the required thirty (30)-day
period.

38

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure was promulgated to

achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases
that it covers. In the present case, the respondent failed to abide by
this purpose in the way that he handled and acted on the subject
unlawful detainer case.
Another of the respondents procedural lapses relates to the
frequent resetting of the date of the preliminary conference. The
preliminary conference scheduled for June 24, 2008 was reset, for
various reasons, to August 26, 2008, November 25, 2008 and
December 9, 2008, and was finally conducted on February 3, 2009,
or almost two (2) years after the complainants filed their answer.
Clearly, the respondent failed to exert his authority in expediting the
proceedings of the unlawful detainer case. Sound practice requires a
judge to remain, at all times, in full control of the proceedings in his
court

and

to

adopt

firm

policy

against

unnecessary

postponements.35
In numerous occasions, we admonished judges to be prompt in the
performance of their solemn duty as dispensers of justice because
undue delay in the administration of justice erodes the peoples faith
in the judicial system.36 Delay not only reinforces the belief of the
people that the wheels of justice in this country grind slowly; it also
invites suspicion, however unfair, of ulterior motives on the part of
the judge. Judges should always be mindful of their duty to render
justice within the periods prescribed by law.
Five Star Marketing vs. Booc
G.R. No. 143331 October 5, 2007

39

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

The record reveals that both the respondent and his counsel failed to
appear at the preliminary conference scheduled on August 3, 1999.
The only explanation offered to justify their non-appearance was the
counsel's unpostponable personal engagement in Manila, without
specification as to the details thereof. Assuming that the counsel's
justification is acceptable, the same should be applied only as an
explanation for the his non-appearance. However, no explanation at
all was offered with respect to the respondent's failure to appear. At
the very least, the respondent should have attended the preliminary
conference notwithstanding the absence of his counsel. Absent any
clear justification for the party and counsel's non-appearance, the
defiance of the lawful order of the court as well as the wellentrenched rule laid down by the rules of procedure on the effect of
non-appearance, cannot be allowed.
This Court cannot ignore the fact that even on appeal to the RTC, the
respondent likewise failed to offer a sufficient explanation for defying
the Rules. It is thus unfortunate that the RTC ruled in his favor
on the sole ground that Rules may be liberally applied
especially when its strict observance will result in the denial
of due process.
Rules of procedure are essential to the proper, efficient and orderly
dispensation of justice. Such rules are to be applied in a manner that
will help secure and not defeat justice. Thus, the Court had the
occasion to rule against the dismissal of appeals based solely on
technicalities, especially so when the appellant had substantially
complied with the formal requirements. Substantial compliance
warrants a prudent and reasonable relaxation of the rules of
procedure. Circumspect leniency will give the appellant the fullest
opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint rather than to

40

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. The Rules are

relaxed when rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and
substantial justice.
To reiterate, respondent offered no explanation for his defiance of
the rules on preliminary conference. Neither did he exert effort to
substantially comply by appearing before the court even without his
counsel. Thus, there is no reason to affirm the theory of the RTC on
the relaxation of the Rules.
Soriente vs. The Estate of the Late Concepcion
G.R. No. 160239 November 25, 2009
Petitioner asserts that considering that the cases against her,
defendants Caballero and Sadol were consolidated, and she and
defendant Caballero signed and filed one common Answer to the
Complaint, thus, pleading a common defense, the trial court should
not have rendered judgment on her case based on Section 7 of the
1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure when she failed to
appear in the preliminary conference.
Petitioner claims that Section 6 of the Rules on Summary Procedure
applies to her as a defendant, since the ejectment cases were
consolidated by the trial court, and she and Caballero filed the same
Answer to the Complaint.
The Court notes that the ejectment case filed by respondent against
petitioner was docketed in the trial court as Civil Case No. 17973,
the case against Alfredo Caballero was docketed as Civil Case No.
17974, while the case against Severina Sadol was docketed as Civil
Case No. 17932. These cases were consolidated by the trial court.

41

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Section 7 of the Rules on Summary Procedure states:

SEC. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. Not later
than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary
conference shall be held. The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases
shall be applicable to the preliminary conference unless inconsistent
with the provisions of this Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference
shall be a cause for the dismissal of his complaint. The defendant
who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to
judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with Section 6 hereof.
All cross-claims shall be dismissed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled
to judgment in accordance with Section 6 hereof. This Rule shall not
apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common
cause of action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at
the preliminary conference.
Section 6 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure,
which is referred to by Section 7 above, states:
SEC. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to
answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court,
motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as
may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited
to what is prayed for therein: Provided, however, That the court may
in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorneys fees
claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This is
without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants.

42

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Under the above rule, if a sole defendant shall fail to appear in the
preliminary conference, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in
accordance with Section 6 of the Rule, that is, the court shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Complaint
and limited to what is prayed for therein. However, "[t]his Rule (Sec.
7) shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a
common cause of action, who had pleaded a common defense, shall
appear at the preliminary conference." Petitioner claims that the
preceding provision applies to her as a defendant, since the
ejectment cases were consolidated by the trial court, and she and
Caballero filed the same Answer to the Complaint; hence, the trial
court should not have rendered judgment against her when she
failed to appear in the preliminary conference.
The Court holds that the provision above does not apply in
the case of petitioner, since she and Caballero were not codefendants in the same case. The ejectment case filed
against petitioner was distinct from that of Caballero, even if
the trial court consolidated the cases and, in the interest of
justice, considered the Answer filed by Caballero in Civil
Case No. 17974 as the Answer also of petitioner since she
affixed her signature thereto.
Considering that petitioner was sued in a separate case for
ejectment from that of Caballero and Sadol, petitioners failure to
appear in the preliminary conference entitled respondent to the
rendition of judgment by the trial court on the ejectment case filed
against petitioner, docketed as Civil Case No. 17973, in accordance
with Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

43

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

SECTION 9. Record of preliminary conference. Within five

(5) days after the termination of the preliminary conference,
the court shall issue an order stating the matters taken up
therein, including but not limited to:
1.

Whether

the

parties

have

arrived

at

an

amicable

settlement, and if so, the terms thereof;

2. The stipulations or admissions entered into by the parties;
3.

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 thirty
(30) days from issuance of the order;
4. A clear specification of material facts which remain
controverted; and
5. Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of
the case.
Similar Provision in The Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure and Related Case
Diaz vs. Judge Gestopa, Jr.
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786 June 22, 2011
Complainant alleged she filed an unlawful detainer case. The case
was scheduled for pre-trial conference. Since complainant cannot
attend the conference because of her heart ailment, she instead
sent her nephew, Elmer Llanes, to appear in her behalf.

44

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

During the conference, Judge Gestopa recommended the case for

barangay conciliation, pursuant to Section 408 (g) of the Local
Government Code. Complainant's counsel objected and moved for
mediation instead. However, respondent judge insisted that he has
the authority to refer it back to barangay for conciliation.
Respondent judge argued that such referral to the barangay is
justified by Section 408 (g) of the Local Government Code.
We are unconvinced.
Indeed, in Farrales v. Camarista, the Court explained that while the
last paragraph of the afore-cited provision apparently gives the
Court discretion to refer the case to the lupon for amicable
settlement although it may not fall within the authority of the lupon,
the referral of said subject civil case to the lupon is saliently an
unsound exercise of discretion, considering that the matter falls
under the Rule on Summary Procedure. The reason is because the
Rule on Summary Procedure was promulgated for the purpose of
achieving "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases."
The fact that unlawful detainer cases fall under summary procedure,
speedy resolution thereof is thus deemed a matter of public policy.
To do otherwise would ultimately defeat the very essence of the
creation of the Rules on Summary Procedure.
To further strengthen and emphasize the objective of expediting the
adjudication of cases falling under the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, Sections 7 and 8 mandated preliminary conference which
is precisely for the purpose of giving room for a possible amicable
settlement, to wit:
SEC. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. - Not later
than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary

45

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

conference shall be held. The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases

shall be applicable to the preliminary conference unless inconsistent
with the provisions of this Rule.
Section 8 of said Rule reads in full:
SEC. 8. Record of preliminary conference. - Within five (5) days after
the termination of the preliminary conference, the court shall issue
an order stating the matters taken up therein, including but not
limited to:
a) Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement, and if so, the 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 thirty (30) days from issuance of the order;
d) A clear specification of material facts which remain
controverted; and
e) Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of the
case.
Thus, there was no reason anymore to refer the case back to the
barangay for the sole purpose of amicable settlement, because the
abovementioned Sections 7 and 8 provided already for such action.
Furthermore, considering that complainant had already manifested
in court, albeit belatedly, the presence of what it considered to be a
valid Certification to File Action in court due to unsuccessful

46

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

conciliation, respondent's act of referring the case to barangay

conciliation rendered its purpose moot and academic.

SECTION 10. Submission of affidavits and position papers.

Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order mentioned in
the next preceding section, the parties shall 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. (9, RSP)
The parties shall submit affidavits of their witnesses and other
evidence on the factual issues defined by court in the order issued in
accordance with Section 9, Rule 70 within ten (10) days from receipt
of the such order. The parties shall also file their position papers
wherein the law and the facts relied upon by them must be stated.
Macaslang vs. Zamora
G.R. No. 156375 May 30, 2011
Rule 70 of the Rules of Courthas envisioned the submission only of
affidavits of the witnesses (not oral testimony) and other
proofs on the factual issues defined in the order issued within five
days from the termination of the preliminary conference;35and has
permitted the trial court, should it find the need to clarify material
facts, to thereafter issue an order during the 30-day period from

47

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

48

submission of the affidavits and other proofs specifying the matters

to be clarified, and requiring the parties to submit affidavits or other
evidence upon such matters within ten days from receipt of the
order.

Sec. 11. Period for rendition of judgment. 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.
However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material
facts, it may, during the said 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 ten (10) days from receipt of
said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the
receipt of the last affidavit or the expiration of the period for filing the
same.
The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain time
for the rendition of the judgment.

Judgement

The period for rendition of judgment is within 30 days after

receipt of the affidavits and position papers, or the expiration
of the period for filing the same. (Sec. 11 Rule 70, Rules of

Court)
Is binding not only against the defendant but also against all
persons

claiming

under

him.

It also binds

squatters,

trespassers, transferees pendente lite, sub lessees, family and

relatives.
The extent of the judgement is only on the issue of possession
and not on ownership. (Section 18 Rule 70, Rules of Court)

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

In case of ambiguity
The court may, during the said 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 ten (10) days from receipt
of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days
after the receipt of the last affidavit or the expiration of the period
for filing the same. (Sec. 11 Rule 70, Rules of Court)
To guard against abuses
The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain
time for the rendition of the judgment. (Sec. 11 Rule 70, Rules of
Court)
Related Laws:
REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Florida Teraa vs. Hon. Antonio de Sagun
G.R. No. 152131

April 29, 2009

The failure of one party to submit his position paper does not bar at
all the MTC from issuing a judgment on the ejectment complaint.
Section 10 of the RSP states:
Section 10. Rendition of judgment. Within thirty (30) days after
receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of
the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.
[Underscoring supplied.]
However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain
material facts, it may, during the said 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 ten

49

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

50

(10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered

within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last affidavit or the
expiration of the period for filing the same. The court shall not resort
to the foregoing procedure just to gain time for the rendition of the
judgment. Thus, the situation obtaining in the present case has been
duly provided for by the Rules; it was correct to render a judgment,
as the MTC did, after one party failed to file their position paper and
supporting affidavits.
That a position paper is not indispensable to the courts authority to
render judgment is further evident from what the RSP provides
regarding a preliminary conference: "on the basis of the pleadings
and the stipulations and admissions made by the parties, judgment
may be rendered without the need for further proceedings, in which
event the judgment shall be rendered within 30 days from the
issuance of the order." Thus, the proceedings may stop at that point,
without need for the submission of position papers. In such a case,
what would be extant in the record and the bases for the judgment
would be the complaint, answer, and the record of the preliminary
conference.

Sec.

12.

Referral

for

conciliation.

Cases

requiring

referral

for

conciliation, where there is no showing of compliance with such

requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived
only after that requirement shall have been complied with.
Related Laws PD 1508
Fidel M. Baares vs Elizabeth Balising
G.R. No. 132624. March 13, 2000

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

51

Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for

conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508
where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement,
shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after
such requirement shall have been complied with. This provision shall
not apply to criminal cases where the accused was arrested without
a warrant.

Sec. 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions.

The following petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be allowed:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with section
12;
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other
paper;
6. Memoranda;
7. Petition for

certiorari,

mandamus,

or

prohibition

against

interlocutory order issued by the court;

8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply;
11. Third-party complaints;
12. Interventions.

Antonio L. Del Mundo vs. Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1611 September 30, 2005
Section 19 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and
Section 13, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibit the filing
of a motion to dismiss in a case for ejectment, except on the ground

any

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

52

of lack of jurisdiction or failure to refer the case for conciliation to

the Lupon.
The defendants Motion to Dismiss was based on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter, there being no previous
demand to pay and vacate made by the plaintiffs upon the
defendant as provided for under Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court.
It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and is not made to
depend upon the allegations in a motion to dismiss, for if it were, the
question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the
defendant.

Sec. 14. Affidavits. The affidavits required to be submitted under this

Rule 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.
A 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 record.
What other statements may constitute as a substitute to the
affidavit of witnesses?
De la Rosa v. Carlos
G.R. No. 147549. Oct. 23, 2004
The verified statement by the defendants that all the allegations in
the position paper are true and correct of their own personal
knowledge constitutes the affidavit of witnesses required by Rule
70 attaching thereto their documentary to their position witness, the

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

53

requirements of Sections 10 and 14 are deemed satisfied. There is

no need of separate affidavits.

Sec. 15. Preliminary injunction. The court may grant preliminary

injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 hereof, to
prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession
against the plaintiff.
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry or
unlawful detainer may, within five (5) days from the filing of the
complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or
unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the
motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof.
In what situations can you apply section 15 of Rule 70?

Under the Civil Code, every possessor has the right to be

respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed
therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession
by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court.

(Art. 539)
Under the present law, an inferior court has jurisdiction to
grant provisional remedies in proper cases.

These proper

cases would be:

1.) Preliminary attachment under Rule 57, provided the
principal action is within jurisdiction, such as an action of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
2.) Preliminary injunction under Rule 58 in both forcible entry
and unlawful detainer also in cases mentioned in the
preceding paragraph. ( Dean Jose Y. Feria, Phil. Legal

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Studies, Series No.1, the Judiciary Reorganization Act

of 1980).
Section 16.Resolving defense of ownership. When the
defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings
and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding theremains
issue of ownership,
the despite
issue of ownership
Jurisdiction
in the MTC
the issue shall
on
be resolved
only to
the issue of possession.
ownership
raised
by determine
the defendant
Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia vs. Dimatulac (April 29, 2003)
G.R. No. 142015
The assertion by the defendant of ownership over the disputed
property does not serve to divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction.
The defendant cannot deprive the court of jurisdiction by merely
claiming ownership of the property involved. If the defendant raises
the question of ownership and the issue of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the question of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession (Sec. 3, RA 7691).

Section 17.Judgment. If after trial court finds that the

allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render
Judgment award
judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the
1. Restitution of the premises
premises,
therents
sumorjustly
as or
arrears
of rent or as
2. Monthly
rents indue
arrears
reasonable
reasonable
compensation
for the
and occupation
of the
compensation
for the use
and use
occupation
of the property
3. Attorneys fees and
premises, attorney's fees and costs. If a counterclaim is
4. Costs
established, the court shall render judgment for the sum

54

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

What are the damages that can be recovered in ejectment

cases
Terana vs de Sagun
G.R. No. 152131 April 29, 2009
Rule 70, Section 17 of the Rules of Court authorizes the trial court to
order the award of an amount representing arrears of rent or
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the
premises if it finds that the allegations of the complaint are true.
The rationale for limiting the kind of damages recoverable in an
unlawful detainer case was explained in Araos v. Court of Appeals,
wherein the Court held that:
The rule is settled that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases,
the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased
property. 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.

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
Does it bar an action with regard to the issue of ownership
shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and
shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the
Roberts vs. Papio

55

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

G.R. No. 166714 Feb. 9, 2007

The judgment would not bar an action between the same parties
respecting title to the land or building. The resolution of the MeTC on
the ownership of the property is merely provisional or interlocutory.
Any question involving the issue of ownership should be raised and
resolved in a separate action brought specifically to settle the
question with finality.
Where do you appeal the judgment?

The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate

Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the Regional Trial Court.

Section 19.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
How to stay the immediate execution of judgment
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

56

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

Defendant must take the following steps to stay the execution

(a)
(b)

of the judgment:
Perfect an appeal;
File a supersedeas bond to pay for the rents, damages and

costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from; and
(c)
Deposit periodically with the RTC, during the pendency of the
appeal, the adjudged amount of rent due under the contract or if
there be no contract, the reasonable value of the use and occupation
of the premises (Sec. 19).
What happens if the requisites are not complied with
Republic of the Philippines vs. Luriz
G. R. No. 158992 January 26, 2007
The foregoing rule provides that a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
shall be immediately executory. It can be stayed by the defendant
only by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and making
a periodic deposit of the rental or the reasonable compensation for
the use and occupancy of the property during the pendency of the
appeal. These requisites are mandatory and concurrent. Thus, if
not complied with, execution will issue as a matter of right.
Where do you appeal the judgment of the MTC?
Section 18.xxx
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the
appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the
same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings
had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by
Section 20.Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of
the Regional Trial Court.
appeal. Upon motion of the plaintiff, within ten (10) days
from the perfection of the appeal to the Regional Trial
Court, the latter may issue a writ of 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

57

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

What is the nature of RTCs judgment in ejectment cases?

Section 21.

Immediate execution on appeal to Court of

Appeals or Supreme Court. The judgment of the Regional

Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately
How do you stay the execution?
executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may
Writtherefrom.
of execution may be enjoined
betaken
La Campana Development Corporation vs. Ledesma
G.R. No. 154152 August 25, 2010
It is true that Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that
[t]he judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant
shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further
appeal that may be taken therefrom. However, the Court ruled
in Benedicto v. Court of Appeals that on appeal the appellate court
may stay the said writ should circumstances so require. x x x even
if RTC judgments in unlawful detainer cases are immediately
executory, preliminary injunction may still be granted.
From the RTC, where does the aggrieved party go and
through what means?
To the CA through Petition for Review

Leynes vs. CA
G. R. No. 154462 January 19, 2011
Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 clearly lays down the proper modes
of appeal to the Court of Appeals from the RTCs:

58

RULE 70 Forcible Entry and

Unlawful Detainer

3.

Appeals to the Court of Appeals. On the other hand,

appeals by certiorari will not lie with the Court of Appeals. Appeals
to that Court from Regional Trial Courts may be taken:
a)

by writ of error (ordinary appeal) where the appealed

judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the regional

trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; or
b)

by petition for review where the judgment was rendered

by the regional trial court in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction.
The mode of appeal in either instance is entirely distinct from an
appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
4.

Erroneous Appeals. An appeal taken to either the Supreme

Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate

mode shall be dismissed.

59