In Philippine remedial law, actions for Forcible Entry (FE) and Unlawful Detainer (UD) are collectively known as Ejectment cases. These are summary proceedings designed to provide an expeditious means for a person to recover possession of real property when they have been deprived of it by force, intimidation, strategy, or stealth, or when possession is being unlawfully withheld after the expiration of a right to hold it.
I. The Rule on Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
This jurisdiction is absolute regardless of the value of the property or the amount of damages/unpaid rentals sought. While other civil actions depend on the "jurisdictional amount" (the assessed value of the property), ejectment cases are determined by the nature of the action.
Key Note: If the issue is not merely physical possession (possession de facto) but a contest over the legal right to possess based on ownership (possession de jure), the case may fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) through an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
II. Forcible Entry vs. Unlawful Detainer
Distinguishing between these two is critical because the "jurisdictional facts" that must be alleged in the complaint differ.
| Feature | Forcible Entry (Desahucio) | Unlawful Detainer |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Possession | Possession of the defendant is illegal from the very beginning. | Possession was originally lawful (by contract or tolerance) but became illegal. |
| Grounds | Deprivation of possession by Force, Intimidation, Strategy, Threat, or Stealth (FISTS). | Withholding of possession after the expiration or termination of the right to possess. |
| Demand to Vacate | Not a jurisdictional requirement before filing. | A formal demand to pay and vacate is a jurisdictional prerequisite. |
| Prescription | One (1) year from the date of actual entry (or knowledge of entry in case of stealth). | One (1) year from the date of the last demand to vacate. |
III. Jurisdictional Requirements
To vest the MTC with jurisdiction, the complaint must allege specific facts. Failure to allege these facts means the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the case may be dismissed for lack of merit or treated as a different action.
1. Allegation of Prior Physical Possession (For Forcible Entry)
In Forcible Entry, the plaintiff must prove they were in prior physical possession of the premises until deprived thereof by the defendant. In Unlawful Detainer, prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not required, as the defendant was the one legally in possession at the start.
2. The One-Year Rule
The action must be filed within one (1) year from the date of the forcible entry or the last demand to vacate in unlawful detainer.
- If filed after one year, the MTC loses jurisdiction under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The plaintiff must then file an accion publiciana in the RTC (if the assessed value exceeds the threshold) or the MTC (if it does not).
3. Demand to Pay and Vacate (For Unlawful Detainer)
Under Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a landlord cannot file an unlawful detainer case against a tenant without:
- A demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease; and
- A demand to vacate. This demand must be served at least fifteen (15) days (for residential) or five (5) days (for commercial/land) prior to filing the case.
IV. The Issue of Ownership
Ejectment cases are limited to the issue of physical or material possession (possession de facto). However, it is common for defendants to claim they own the property.
- Provisional Determination: If the defendant raises the defense of ownership and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the MTC has the jurisdiction to resolve the issue of ownership provisionally.
- Non-Binding Effect: This determination is made solely to settle the issue of possession. It is not a final or binding adjudication of ownership and will not bar a separate action between the same parties to settle the title (e.g., a petition for quiet title).
V. The Summary Nature of Proceedings
Cases under Rule 70 are governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. This has significant jurisdictional implications:
- Prohibited Pleadings: Motions to dismiss (except for lack of jurisdiction), motions for bill of particulars, and petitions for certiorari against interlocutory orders are prohibited.
- Verified Pleadings: All complaints and answers must be verified.
- Judgment: The court should render judgment based on position papers and affidavits to ensure the "speedy, inexpensive, and efficient" disposition of the case.
VI. Execution Pending Appeal
A unique jurisdictional feature of ejectment cases is that the judgment of the MTC is immediately executory. Even if the defendant appeals to the RTC, the plaintiff can move for execution unless the defendant:
- Perfects the appeal.
- Files a supersedeas bond (to cover back rentals/damages).
- Periodically deposits the accruing rentals with the appellate court during the pendency of the appeal.