How to Evict an Illegal Settler

RECENT EVENTS have brought to light the quagmire of a problem that is the
informal urban settler. The recent attempted demolition of prime land at Agham
Road, Quezon City was an ugly site, to say the least. The savagery and violence
appeared like a scene out of a Middle Eastern war zone. One cannot help but feel
sorry for the law enforcers who had to face all form and manner of resistance in
their attempted implementation.

In theory, this should not be that problematic. If one does not own the land he
possesses, he has limited rights. He may be ejected based on two types of legal
action: (1) ejectment (i.e., forcible entry or unlawful detainer) (accion interdictal); or
(2) accion publiciana (or the plenary action to recover the better right of
possession).

An action for unlawful detainer and forcible entry must be filed within one year from
the date possession is lost (or the date the unlawful possession started).The
distinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer is premised on the nature
of the possession. An action for forcible entry is proper when the dispossession was
by means of force, threat, intimidation, strategy or stealth. An action for unlawful
detainer, on the other hand, is proper when the possession is originally lawful and
turned unlawful upon the expiration of the right to possess. Cases for ejectment are
filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, and proceedings are summary
in nature.

An accion publiciana, on the other hand, may be filed only after the expiration of the
one-year period, based on the same grounds as ejectment, and may be filed only
with the Regional Trial Courts. Proceedings in this case require the full presentation
of evidence.

There are additional requirements for eviction of urban settlers. Republic Act No.
7279, or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (R.A. 7279) covers all
lands in urban and urbanizable areas, including existing areas for priority
development sites, and in other areas that may be identified by the local
government units as suitable for socialized housing. Urban areas are defined by
law as all cities regardless of their population density and to municipalities with a
population density of at least five hundred (500) persons per square kilometer.

Section 28 of R.A. 7279 allows the eviction of settlers and demolition of structures
(a) when persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks,
garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as
sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds; (b) when government infrastructure
projects with available funding are about to be implemented; (c) when there is a
court order for eviction and demolition.

Under the same Section, eviction may be effected under the following conditions:
(1) Notice upon the affected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date of eviction or demolition; (2) Adequate consultations on the matter of
settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled
and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated; (3)
Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or
demolition; (4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition; (5)
Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to
Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;
(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are
permanent and of concrete materials; (7) Proper uniforms for members of the
Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and
observe proper disturbance control procedures; and (8) Adequate relocation,
whether temporary or permanent.

If the eviction is by way of a court order, relocation shall be undertaken by the local
government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance
of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of
final judgment by the court. Should relocation not be possible within the said
period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum
daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families
by the local government unit concerned. It must be noted that these requirements
are imposed on government, and not imposed on the private entity or individual
asserting the right to possess.

The law protects possessors of real property. For urban settlers, the law is very
protective- sometimes to the chagrin of the actual owners of property. Some argue,
quite simplistically, that you cannot occupy land that is not yours, and if you do, this
cannot give rise to any actionable right. But the law has already carefully laid
down the procedure, and compliance is the only way to proceed.

Once there is compliance with the requirements, however, there should be swift and
decisive enforcement. Resistance by way of violence has no place in a civilized
society. If there are defects in the enforcement of the writ of possession and
demolition, Courts should be the proper recourse, and I am sure the residents will
not be lacking in champions for their cause. It is thus disheartening to see mayhem
and belligerence used the last line of defense of what strictly should be a legal
battle.
 Republic of the Philippines
Municipal Trial Court
Branch 5
Baguio City

Mr. Uzumaki Naruto, plaintif Civil Case

No. 2

Accompanied by his Attorney in fact,

for:Unlawful Detainer

Atty. Poging Attorney

-versus-

Mr. Uchiha Sasuke, Defendant

x-----------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintif together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;

1. The Plaintiff is of legal age, married and a resident of Puguis, La Trinidad

Benguet. The Defendant is likewise of legal age, married and temporary residing at
Petersville Subdivision, Baguio City.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of the two-storey house unit located at the
Petersville Subdivision, Baguio City, and having the residential address of PV 123 as
evidenced by pertinent documents like tax declaration and deed of sale. ( EXHIBIT
A )
3. The Defendant is the lessee of the house unit that is owned by the Plaintiff as
evidenced by the written contract of lease that both parties signed. (Exhibit B)
4. The Plaintiff and the Defendant came up with a written agreement of Lease on
June 26, 2007, which they both agreed upon and was duly signed by the two parties
as shown in their contract of lease. (Exhibit B)
5. Item No. 16 of the contract which the defendant signed expressly provides
that he will only be occupying the property for one (1) year, after which, he will
vacate the house when that term expires. (Exhibit B)
6. The contract also provides that the defendant should also take care of the
property and its premises with the utmost diligence.
7. On June 28, 2008, the plaintiff, after returning from Japan, was surprised to
discover that the defendant did not vacate the property as he expected. Worse, he
installed a sari-sari store in the original building structure of the house unit.
8. The plaintiff confronted the defendant about it but the defendant claimed that
it was a DEED OF SALE which they signed and not a CONTRACT OF LEASE and
therefore, the defendant is the new owner of the house unit.
9. On August 20, 2008, after continuous demands, the defendant constantly
refuses to vacate the house unit and even invited relatives to stay with him.
10. The defendant willfully and maliciously violated the agreement which they
mutually agreed upon, and which the defendant signed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that judgement be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and that after judgement;

a. The defendant shall vacate the house unit owned by the plaintiff.
b. The defendant shall be ordered to pay P 120, 000 for the Attorneys Fees.

Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Baguio City, Philippines, this 28th day of September 2008.

Poging Attorney
Counsel for the Plaintif
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Baguio Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, Baguio City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Mr. Uzumaki Naruto, of Legal age, married, Filipino Citizen and a resident of
Puguis, La Trinidad Benguet, after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and
state that;

1. I am the Complainant in this proceeding.

2. I have read and understood the filed complaint and allegations therein.

Uzumaki Naruto
Complainant

In witness thereof, I, Mr. Poging Attorney, counsel of the plaintiff, have herunto set
my hand this 29th of September at Baguio City.

Poging Attorney
Counsel for the Plaintif
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Baguio Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, Baguio City