PUBLIC ATTORNEYS NOT ALLOWED TO HANDLE EJECTMENT CASES

Dear PAO,
I am an overseas Filipino worker. I invested my hard-earned money in building three-door apartment
units in Tondo, Manila. I have a tenant named Marjorie, who has not paid her monthly rent for three
months now. I already demanded from her to pay her arrears and leave the apartment unit but my
demands were futile and unsuccessful. Thus, I want to file a case against her. However, I do not know
what complaint to file since I am confused whether to file a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case. Can
you please enlighten me about the difference between the two cases? Do you offer your services to
such cases? Can you help me in ejecting my tenant from my apartment?

Thank you very much,

Geoff

Dear Geoff,
The difference between unlawful detainer and forcible entry case can be found in the case decided by
the Supreme Court in Esperanza P. Sumulong represented by Mario P. Sumulong vs. Court of Appeals
and Inland Trailways Inc. (G.R. No. 108817, May 10, 1995), penned by Chief Justice Hilario P. Davide, Jr.,
wherein the following explanation was given, thus:

“In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession
thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or
implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the
prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by
the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is the one
decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff’s cause of
action is the termination of the defendant’s right to continue in possession.

Accordingly, in forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint and prove that he was in prior
physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant, but in
unlawful detainer, the plaintiff need not have prior physical possession of the property, or, elsewise
stated, prior physical possession is not an indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case.”

Applying the decision in your case, a civil case for unlawful detainer may be filed against Marjorie
considering that she is unlawfully withholding possession of the apartment unit for failure to pay the
rent due and vacate the premises. Likewise, the Supreme Court in the case of Rene Michael French vs.
Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No, 220057, July 12, 2017), penned by Honorable Associate Justice Antonio
T. Carpio, emphasized:

“A complaint for an action for unlawful detainer is sufficient if the following allegations are present:
initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of
the latter’s right of possession;

thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof; and

within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the
complaint for ejectment.”

However, with regard to your concern on whether the services of the Public Attorney’s Office can be
availed of in cases of ejectment, we regret to inform you that under the 2016 Revised PAO Operations
Manual, particularly Article 7(4) thereof, public attorneys are not allowed to extend legal services to
landlords/lessors of residential buildings with respect to the filing of unlawful detainer suits against their
tenants or lessees. The said provision is quoted below:

“ARTICLE 7. Persons not qualified for legal assistance. – Public Attorneys and employees are prohibited
from assisting the following:

xxx

Landlords or lessors of residential and commercial lands and/or buildings, with respect to the filing of
collection or unlawful detainer suits against their tenants or lessees; and, xxx” (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is worthy to note that all complainants in unlawful detainer cases, i.e. landlords, lessors, sub-
lessors, owners, vendors, vendees, lessees, sub-lessees, and all other persons against whom the
possession of any land or building has been unlawfully withheld after the expiration of the right to hold
possession of the same, by virtues of contract, express or implied, are deemed to be disqualified from
the legal assistance of the Public Attorney’s Office.