Quick answer

A condominium board or property manager generally cannot remove a unit owner, tenant, or lawful occupant merely by issuing an “eviction notice,” changing the locks, blocking access, or cutting essential services. Actual recovery of possession normally requires a valid legal basis, proper corporate authority, notice or demand when required, and an order from the court or other tribunal with jurisdiction.

When the condominium corporation itself seeks eviction, the absence of a proper board resolution may undermine the authority of the officer, administrator, or lawyer who acted for it. But the defect does not automatically defeat every case. Authority may already exist under the corporation’s bylaws or a valid delegation, certain senior officers may be recognized as authorized for limited procedural acts, and the board may sometimes cure an unauthorized act through later ratification.

The decisive questions are:

Who owns or has the better right to possess the unit?
Is the complainant the unit owner, lessor, condominium corporation, developer, buyer, or another party?
What do the lease, title, master deed, declaration of restrictions, bylaws, and board records actually authorize?
Was the occupant’s right to stay validly terminated?
Was the correct demand made and the proper case filed on time?
Is the dispute an ordinary ejectment case, a condominium-contract dispute, an intra-corporate controversy, or a foreclosure matter?

A missing resolution is therefore important, but it is not a universal defense and does not create a permanent right to remain in the unit.

A condominium corporation does not automatically own every unit

Under the Condominium Act, Republic Act No. 4726, a condominium corporation generally serves as the project’s management body when it owns or holds the common areas. Its corporate purposes are limited to holding or managing those areas and carrying out purposes necessary, incidental, or convenient to project management.

The corporation’s authority over common areas does not, by itself, give it ownership or possession of every privately titled unit. Before attempting to remove an occupant from a particular unit, the corporation must identify the legal source of its claimed right, such as:

ownership or a leasehold interest in the unit;
a valid agency or authority from the unit owner;
an enforceable provision in the registered master deed or declaration of restrictions;
a judgment, foreclosure, or other proceeding that lawfully transferred possession; or
another contractual or statutory right applicable to the facts.

This distinction is critical. The power to manage the building and enforce reasonable restrictions is not automatically a power to take possession of a privately owned home.

What authority the board may have

The registered declaration of restrictions may define the management body’s powers, voting rules, quorum, notice requirements, delegation authority, and enforcement mechanisms. The Supreme Court has recognized that unit owners may be bound by restrictions and properly adopted house rules authorized by the master deed. See Dy v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 210297, April 3, 2019.

That authority still has limits. The board must act:

within the Condominium Act and other applicable laws;
within the corporation’s articles, bylaws, and registered restrictions;
through a meeting, quorum, vote, or written action valid under the governing documents and corporate law;
for a purpose the corporation is authorized to pursue; and
through officers or agents who have been properly empowered.

A house rule cannot transfer ownership, invent a right of possession, or authorize remedies prohibited by law. A rule permitting fines, access controls, or collection measures also should not be assumed to authorize eviction.

Why a board resolution matters

Under the Revised Corporation Code, Republic Act No. 11232, corporate powers are generally exercised by the board of directors or trustees. A corporation necessarily acts through natural persons, but an officer, administrator, director, or lawyer must have authority to bind or represent it.

A proper resolution can establish that the board:

approved termination of a corporate lease or permission to occupy;
authorized a demand to vacate;
decided to commence an ejectment or other possession case;
selected the corporation’s representative or counsel;
authorized the signing of pleadings, verification, and certification against forum shopping; and
defined the representative’s powers.

The Supreme Court has explained that the power of a corporation to sue is generally exercised through its board, while the necessary physical acts are performed by authorized natural persons. See Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company, G.R. No. 179488, April 23, 2012 and Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. Treasurer of the City of Manila, G.R. No. 181277, July 3, 2013.

The safest practice is to approve the action before sending the decisive demand or filing the case and to issue a secretary’s certificate accurately reproducing the authority granted.

When there may be no valid resolution

A document labeled “board resolution” is not conclusive. Its validity may depend on corporate records and the governing documents. Warning signs include:

no notice to directors when notice was required;
lack of quorum;
approval by persons whose terms had expired or whose election is genuinely disputed;
insufficient votes;
action outside the corporation’s powers;
minutes or a secretary’s certificate inconsistent with the actual meeting;
authority granted by the property manager alone;
a resolution covering collection or rule enforcement but not termination of occupancy or litigation; or
a resolution issued by a different corporation or association.

The name on the demand and complaint also matters. A property-management company is legally distinct from the condominium corporation and the unit owner. One entity ordinarily cannot recover possession belonging to another merely because their personnel or officers overlap. The Supreme Court applied this separate-personality principle when the corporation that filed an unlawful-detainer case was not the corporation that owned the property in Philippine International Organization for Animal Welfare, Inc. v. Pedro, G.R. No. 243368, March 27, 2023.

A missing resolution does not always end the matter

Several qualifications prevent a mechanical “no resolution, no case” conclusion.

Authority may come from another valid source

The articles, bylaws, master deed, or an earlier board delegation may already empower a particular officer to perform a defined act. The exact language and scope must be examined; a general job title should not automatically be treated as unlimited authority.

Some procedural acts may be signed by senior officers

Supreme Court decisions have recognized that officers such as a corporation’s chairperson, president, general manager, or other responsible officials may, in appropriate circumstances, sign a verification and certification against forum shopping because they are in a position to know the facts. That procedural rule does not necessarily prove that the corporation validly decided to evict someone or that it possesses a substantive right to the unit.

The board may ratify an earlier act

A corporation may sometimes ratify an unauthorized act expressly or through conduct showing knowing adoption. A later board resolution may therefore cure certain authority defects.

In Marcelo v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 212034, July 2, 2018, the Supreme Court treated a later resolution authorizing the filing of the unlawful-detainer case as ratification of an earlier demand that the corporation had not repudiated. The result depended on the facts and the corporation’s subsequent conduct.

Ratification is not a dependable cure for every problem. It cannot supply a substantive right the corporation never had, validate an unlawful remedy, displace another person’s ownership, or necessarily cure missed jurisdictional deadlines.

Board authority and the right to possession are different issues

Even a perfectly adopted resolution proves only that the corporation decided to act. It does not prove that the corporation is entitled to possess the unit.

Conversely, an occupant may successfully challenge a representative’s authority yet still face a new demand or case brought by the proper unit owner or by a duly authorized corporation. The underlying lease expiration, unpaid rent, breach, or loss of permission does not disappear merely because the first corporate paperwork was defective.

In an ejectment case, the central issue is material or physical possession—possession de facto—rather than final ownership. The plaintiff must prove a better right to immediate physical possession by a preponderance of evidence.

An eviction notice is not a writ of eviction

A demand to vacate is usually a pre-suit step. It is not a court judgment and does not authorize guards, administrators, or directors to carry out a forced eviction.

If the occupant does not leave voluntarily, the party claiming possession generally must obtain relief through the proper legal proceeding. Physical removal is ordinarily implemented under a court-issued writ through the sheriff, not by private security or building personnel acting on a board letter alone.

Actions such as changing locks, removing belongings, using threats, or physically excluding an occupant can create separate civil or criminal issues depending on the facts. Utility interruption is particularly fact-sensitive. The Supreme Court has upheld a condominium rule allowing interruption in a specific case where the registered restrictions and house rules authorized it, but that decision should not be read as a blanket license to disconnect services as an eviction tactic. See Dy v. China Banking Corporation.

Ordinary unlawful detainer: the basic requirements

When possession began lawfully—such as through a lease, contract, or the owner’s tolerance—but later became unlawful, the usual summary remedy is unlawful detainer under Rule 70.

The complaint generally must show that:

the defendant originally possessed the property by contract or tolerance;
that right expired or was validly terminated;
the plaintiff made the legally required demand or notice;
the defendant continued withholding possession; and
the case was filed within one year from the legally relevant unlawful withholding or last demand.

For nonpayment or breach of lease conditions, Rule 70 generally requires a demand both to pay or comply and to vacate. Unless the parties validly stipulated otherwise, the rule provides a waiting period after demand of five days for a building and fifteen days for land. Different analysis may apply when the case rests on expiration of a fixed lease, and the contract’s notice provisions remain important.

A demand sent by a person who lacked authority may be challenged. But the court will examine whether authority existed elsewhere, whether the proper principal adopted the demand, and whether a later act validly ratified it.

Ejectment cases fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, regardless of the property’s assessed value. Cases filed from April 11, 2022 are governed by the Supreme Court’s Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts. These cases move quickly, and failure to answer or submit required evidence on time can have serious consequences.

If more than one year has passed

If the summary ejectment period has expired, the claimant may need an accion publiciana, an ordinary action to determine the better right of possession. The proper court then depends in part on the property’s assessed value.

Under Republic Act No. 11576, first-level courts generally handle real actions when the assessed value does not exceed ₱400,000; the Regional Trial Court generally handles them when it exceeds ₱400,000. The complaint should allege the assessed value and attach reliable supporting documentation, such as the current tax declaration.

This is different from market value, selling price, or the remaining loan balance.

Barangay conciliation may or may not be required

Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation may be a precondition when the dispute is between natural persons who actually reside in the same city or municipality, subject to statutory exceptions.

A corporation or other juridical entity cannot be a party to barangay conciliation in the same way as a natural person. The Supreme Court has accordingly held that prior barangay proceedings were unnecessary where the complainant was a juridical entity. See Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. 200612, April 5, 2017.

Do not assume the exemption applies merely because a building administrator delivered the notice. The named plaintiff and the real party in interest determine whether a corporation is actually bringing the case.

When the dispute may belong before the HSAC

Not every condominium dispute is an ejectment case. The Human Settlements Adjudication Commission may have jurisdiction over disputes arising from condominium sales, development obligations, or contracts covered by housing laws, including Presidential Decree No. 957 and Republic Act No. 11201.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that jurisdiction depends on the allegations, the parties’ relationship, and the principal relief sought—not simply on the fact that the property is a condominium. A case seeking immediate recovery of physical possession may follow Rule 70, while a dispute principally involving a buyer-developer contract or statutory housing obligation may fall within the HSAC’s specialized jurisdiction.

Before filing, identify whether the real controversy concerns:

possession after a lease or permission ended;
compliance with a condominium sale or contract to sell;
developer obligations;
corporate elections or the legitimacy of competing boards;
validity or enforcement of assessments and liens;
foreclosure; or
title or ownership.

Choosing the wrong forum can result in dismissal and lost time.

Unpaid condominium dues do not permit instant eviction

Section 20 of the Condominium Act allows an assessment, together with authorized charges, to become a lien when the management body registers the required notice with the Register of Deeds. Enforcement of that lien is distinct from ejectment.

The corporation cannot simply seize the unit or remove its occupant. Judicial foreclosure must follow Rule 68. Extrajudicial foreclosure requires compliance with the governing foreclosure law and proof of a special authority or power to sell.

In LPL Greenhills Condominium Corporation v. Huang, G.R. No. 248743, September 7, 2022, the Supreme Court held that Section 20 alone does not give a condominium corporation special authority to sell a unit through extrajudicial foreclosure. Without the required authority, the corporation could pursue an ordinary collection action or judicial foreclosure, but the extrajudicial sale was invalid.

A resolution authorizing collection is therefore not necessarily an authority to foreclose, sell, or evict.

What an occupant should do after receiving a board eviction notice

Do not ignore the notice, but do not assume it is already enforceable as a court order.

Identify the sender and claimant. Determine whether the notice comes from the unit owner, lessor, condominium corporation, developer, property manager, or counsel.
Ask for the source of authority. Request the relevant secretary’s certificate or resolution, together with the provision of the bylaws, master deed, or contract relied upon. Personal information unrelated to the authority may properly be redacted.
Check the unit’s ownership. Obtain a certified true copy of the Condominium Certificate of Title and relevant annotations from the Registry of Deeds when ownership or liens are disputed.
Review all controlling documents. Compare the notice with the lease, deed of sale, contract to sell, master deed, declaration of restrictions, bylaws, house rules, and prior written agreements.
Respond in writing. State specific objections without making unnecessary admissions. If payment is disputed, identify the amount accepted and the amount contested.
Keep meeting and payment records. Preserve notices, minutes, secretary’s certificates, statements of account, receipts, bank records, emails, messages, visitor logs, access-card records, and security reports.
Document interference immediately. Photograph changed locks or removed property, record dates and witnesses, and retain bills or medical records showing resulting loss. Record conversations only in accordance with applicable privacy and anti-wiretapping laws.
Watch for summons. A demand letter and court summons are different. Once summons is served, obtain legal advice immediately because ejectment deadlines are short.
Do not use force. Avoid confrontations with guards, directors, or staff. Seek police assistance for immediate threats or possible criminal conduct, while recognizing that police ordinarily do not decide private possession rights.

What a condominium board should do before seeking possession

The board should first confirm that the corporation—not merely an individual unit owner—has a legally supportable right to possession.

A careful process ordinarily includes:

reviewing the title, lease, master deed, declaration of restrictions, articles, bylaws, and house rules;
identifying the exact breach or event terminating possession;
giving every notice and opportunity to cure required by contract or law;
calling a properly noticed board meeting and confirming quorum;
adopting a resolution that clearly identifies the unit, occupant, legal basis, authorized representative, and approved remedies;
preparing accurate minutes and a secretary’s certificate;
serving a legally sufficient demand through a method that can be proved;
observing the applicable waiting and filing periods;
choosing the proper court or administrative forum; and
avoiding lockouts, removal of property, threats, or other self-help measures.

If the unit belongs to an individual owner, the board should obtain and document that owner’s authority or allow the owner to pursue the appropriate case directly.

Evidence that may decide the authority issue

The most useful records commonly include:

the original and current Condominium Certificate of Title;
annotations of the master deed, restrictions, assessments, liens, or foreclosure;
articles of incorporation and latest bylaws;
the general information sheet identifying directors and officers;
notices and proof of service for the relevant board meeting;
attendance records establishing quorum;
signed minutes and the full resolution;
the secretary’s certificate;
prior delegations of authority;
the management agreement;
the lease and amendments;
demands, replies, and proof of receipt;
receipts and statements of account;
board actions showing approval, repudiation, or ratification; and
the complaint, verification, certification against forum shopping, summons, and court orders.

A certification should be checked against the underlying minutes. If authenticity is disputed, obtain certified corporate records through lawful discovery, subpoena, or other proper process rather than relying only on informal copies.

Common mistakes

Treating every management notice as a lawful eviction order

Only a competent court or tribunal can issue an enforceable judgment or writ within its jurisdiction. A management notice cannot substitute for one.

Assuming a missing attachment proves there was no authority

Failure to attach a resolution and actual absence of authority are different. The corporation may later present a pre-existing delegation or seek to establish ratification.

Challenging only the resolution

Authority is only one issue. The parties must still address ownership, contractual termination, demand, timeliness, jurisdiction, and the better right to possess.

Confusing common-area regulation with possession of a private unit

The board may regulate access and common facilities under valid restrictions, but those powers do not necessarily include taking over a titled unit.

Withholding all payments during a dispute

Unpaid rent or assessments may create independent grounds for collection, penalties, liens, or possession proceedings. Pay undisputed amounts through a traceable method, and obtain advice before using consignation or another substitute payment process.

Missing the one-year Rule 70 period

A defective demand, unauthorized demand, or prolonged negotiation can affect when the period began and which action is proper. Dates should be reviewed immediately.

Ignoring summons while negotiating

Private negotiations do not automatically suspend court deadlines.

When legal help is urgent

Consult a Philippine lawyer promptly if:

locks have been changed or access to the home has been blocked;
utilities have been disconnected or threatened;
guards are attempting to remove people or belongings;
a summons, subpoena, writ, or foreclosure notice has been received;
the deadline for filing an answer or appeal is approaching;
the corporation claims it acquired the unit through foreclosure;
there are competing boards or disputed corporate elections;
children, older persons, persons with disabilities, or medically vulnerable occupants face displacement;
important property, medicines, identification documents, or work equipment are inside;
the one-year ejectment period may expire soon; or
the title, assessed value, or proper forum is uncertain.

The Public Attorney’s Office may assist qualified indigent clients, subject to its rules and conflict checks. Court staff may explain filing mechanics but cannot provide legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

Can the condominium president evict someone without a board vote?

Not automatically. The president’s title may support authority for some routine or procedural acts, but eviction or litigation may require board action unless the bylaws or an existing valid delegation clearly provide otherwise. The corporation must also have a substantive right to possession.

Is an eviction notice void if it does not attach the board resolution?

Not necessarily. The failure to attach proof may create a procedural or evidentiary issue, but authority might be established through the bylaws, an earlier resolution, another valid delegation, or later ratification. Request the underlying authority and preserve the envelope, email, and proof of receipt.

Can the board ratify an unauthorized demand later?

Sometimes. Supreme Court decisions recognize that later board action may ratify certain earlier corporate acts. Ratification cannot create ownership or a right to possession that never existed, and its effect on deadlines or jurisdiction depends on the facts.

Can a board evict a unit owner for unpaid association dues?

Unpaid dues may support collection and a statutory lien if legal requirements are satisfied. They do not authorize an immediate private lockout. Foreclosure and any later recovery of possession must follow the applicable law and required authority.

Can a tenant argue that only the unit owner—not the condominium corporation—may sue?

Yes, when the unit owner is the party with the right to possession and the corporation lacks ownership, assignment, agency, or another enforceable right. The complaint must be brought by the real party in interest or a properly authorized representative.

Does an invalid board resolution let the occupant stay indefinitely?

No. It may defeat or delay a particular corporate action, but the proper owner or a duly authorized corporation may correct the defect and pursue the appropriate remedy, subject to defenses and deadlines.

Can security guards enforce the board’s eviction letter?

They may enforce lawful building-security measures, but they should not replace the sheriff or use force to carry out a private eviction. A board letter alone is not a writ of possession or writ of execution.

Where should the case be filed?

Ordinary forcible-entry and unlawful-detainer cases begin in the proper first-level court. An accion publiciana is assigned according to the property’s assessed value. Certain buyer-developer or condominium-contract disputes may fall within the HSAC, while genuine intra-corporate disputes may require a different forum. The allegations and principal relief—not the document’s label—control.

Official legal sources

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice or a prediction of any case’s outcome. Rights and remedies depend on the title, contracts, corporate records, notices, dates, parties, and relief requested. Primary legal sources and current procedural information were checked as of September 5, 2026.