A Philippine Legal Guide to Co-Heirs, Occupants, Informal Possessors, Tenants, Relatives, Buyers, Caretakers, and Court Remedies

In the Philippines, disputes over inherited property often begin not with title transfer, but with possession. A parent dies, no settlement is completed, one sibling stays in the house, another relative locks the gate, a caretaker refuses to leave, a buyer from only one heir moves in, a surviving partner remains in occupancy, or a stranger starts building on the land. The family then asks a deceptively simple question: Can we eject the occupant and recover possession?

Under Philippine law, the answer depends on a crucial distinction that many families overlook:

Ownership, inheritance, and possession are related, but they are not the same thing.

A person may have a hereditary right yet still need the proper action to recover physical possession. A person may be occupying property without title yet still require formal court process before removal. A co-heir may not simply evict another co-heir as though the latter were an ordinary squatter. And a person who entered by tolerance may become removable through one remedy, while a person claiming ownership or co-ownership may force the dispute into another.

This article explains the Philippine legal framework on ejectment and recovery of possession of inherited property.

I. The Core Problem in Inherited Property Possession Cases

When inherited property is involved, possession disputes usually arise in one of these forms:

one heir occupies the entire property and excludes the others;
a non-heir relative refuses to vacate after the decedent’s death;
a caretaker or overseer stays and claims rights over the land;
a child, sibling, or nephew remains in the ancestral house without paying anything and later refuses to leave;
one heir sells or leases the property, or a portion of it, without proper authority, and the transferee occupies it;
a stranger builds on idle inherited land;
an agricultural possessor claims tenancy or lawful cultivation;
a surviving spouse, partner, or family member remains in possession while succession remains unsettled;
the property is still in the deceased owner’s name, and the heirs want to recover occupancy before or during settlement.

The legal remedy changes depending on who the occupant is, how possession began, whether possession was by tolerance or by claim of right, and whether the property is already partitioned or still under co-ownership among heirs.

II. Inheritance Does Not Immediately Mean Exclusive Possession by One Heir

One of the most important succession principles in the Philippines is that upon death, the decedent’s estate passes to the heirs, subject to the payment of debts and administration where required. But where there are several heirs, the inheritance is often held first in a form of co-ownership before partition.

This means that before partition:

each heir has an ideal or undivided hereditary share,
but not automatic exclusive ownership over a physically specific portion unless valid partition has been made,
and one co-heir generally cannot treat the whole property as if it belonged to him or her alone.

This is critical for possession disputes.

Why this matters

If the property is still undivided:

one heir cannot ordinarily eject another co-heir through the same theory used against a stranger,
because both are claiming through the same succession,
and the issue may become one of co-ownership, partition, accounting, or judicial settlement rather than simple ejectment.

Thus, the very first question is often:

Is the occupant a co-heir or merely a non-heir possessor?

That question may determine the entire case.

III. The First Major Distinction: Possession Versus Ownership

Philippine law draws a strong distinction between:

ownership,
material or physical possession,
and the right to possess.

This distinction governs the remedies.

A person who wants to recover property must ask:

Do I want to recover physical possession only?
Do I need a declaration of better right to possess?
Or do I need to recover ownership itself?

These are not the same.

The main legal actions usually fall into these categories:

1. Ejectment

This includes actions for:

forcible entry, or
unlawful detainer.

These are summary actions focused on possession.

2. Accion publiciana

This is an action to recover the better right to possess when the dispossession has lasted longer than the period for summary ejectment.

3. Accion reivindicatoria

This is an action to recover both ownership and possession from a person wrongfully withholding the property.

A family that files the wrong action may lose on procedure even if morally correct on the facts.

IV. What Is Ejectment in Philippine Law?

In Philippine law, ejectment generally refers to the summary actions of:

forcible entry, and
unlawful detainer.

These cases are designed to quickly restore possession in limited situations.

A. Forcible entry

This applies when the plaintiff was deprived of possession by:

force,
intimidation,
threat,
strategy,
or stealth.

B. Unlawful detainer

This applies when the defendant’s possession was initially lawful or tolerated, but later became illegal after the right to stay expired or was withdrawn and the defendant refused to vacate after demand.

These are specialized remedies. They are not the universal answer to all inherited-property occupancy disputes.

V. Why Families Commonly Choose the Wrong Remedy

Families often say:

“We own the property because it came from our father, so let’s file ejectment.” But that is not enough.

Ejectment is not determined simply by ownership. It depends on the nature of prior possession and the timing of dispossession or refusal to vacate.

For example:

if a caretaker entered with permission and later refused to leave, unlawful detainer may be the remedy;
if a stranger occupied the lot by stealth while the heirs were away, forcible entry may be the remedy;
if the occupant has been there for years and now claims ownership, the proper action may be accion publiciana or reivindicatoria;
if the occupant is another co-heir, the issue may not be ordinary ejectment at all.

Thus, the legal route begins with the facts of possession, not just inheritance papers.

VI. Inherited Property Usually Begins as Co-Owned Property Among Heirs

Before partition, inherited property among several heirs is generally subject to co-ownership. This has major consequences.

A. Each co-heir has a hereditary interest

Each co-heir has rights in the estate, but not yet exclusive ownership over a defined metes-and-bounds portion unless partition exists.

B. Possession by one co-heir may be possession for all

As a general principle, possession by one co-heir is not automatically adverse to the others. It may be considered possession in representation of the co-ownership unless there is a clear repudiation.

C. Ejectment between co-heirs is not straightforward

Because of this, one co-heir’s occupancy is not automatically unlawful merely because the others are not there physically.

This is one of the most misunderstood rules in inherited property disputes.

VII. Can One Heir Eject Another Heir?

Usually, this is far more complicated than ejecting a stranger.

If both parties are heirs and the inheritance remains undivided:

one heir generally cannot simply label the other as an intruder,
because both derive rights from the same deceased owner,
and the matter may require:
- settlement of estate,
- partition,
- accounting of fruits and benefits,
- recognition of co-ownership,
- or an action dealing with exclusive possession after repudiation.

When it becomes more serious

If one heir:

excludes the others,
claims the whole property as exclusively his,
refuses access,
leases the whole without authority,
sells the whole as sole owner,
or openly repudiates co-ownership, then legal action becomes necessary, but still not always by summary ejectment.

Often the proper remedies may include:

partition,
reconveyance,
accion reivindicatoria,
accion publiciana,
accounting,
or annulment of transactions.

The exact remedy depends on whether the plaintiff seeks:

possession,
title recognition,
co-heir rights,
or all of them together.

VIII. Occupants Who Are Not Heirs: A Different Analysis

The analysis is much simpler if the occupant is not a co-heir. Examples:

caretaker,
friend of the decedent,
distant relative with no successional right,
domestic helper,
buyer from a person with no authority,
informal possessor,
former tenant by tolerance,
or other third person.

In those situations, the heirs may often sue to recover possession, provided they can show the legal basis of their standing and the correct cause of action.

The key questions become:

How did the occupant enter?
Was entry lawful or merely tolerated?
Was there force or stealth?
Was there a demand to vacate?
How long has the dispossession lasted?

These questions determine whether the remedy is:

forcible entry,
unlawful detainer,
accion publiciana,
or reivindicatory action.

IX. Standing of Heirs to Sue Before Estate Settlement Is Completed

A common practical problem is that the property is still in the deceased person’s name. Can the heirs sue for possession?

In many situations, yes, heirs may assert hereditary rights and seek appropriate relief to protect the estate or recover possession, subject to the structure of the estate and the presence of administration proceedings.

But the matter becomes more delicate if:

the estate is under judicial administration,
an executor or administrator has been appointed,
or the claimant is only one among several heirs and is trying to assert rights over the whole without joining others or explaining authority.

Why this matters

If there is an estate proceeding, the proper representative of the estate may have a central role. If not, the heirs themselves may often act, especially to protect inherited rights, but they must still observe rules on indispensable parties and the nature of co-ownership.

Thus, one heir suing alone for the entire estate property can create procedural problems if the action ignores the rights of the other heirs.

X. Forcible Entry in Inherited Property Cases

Forcible entry is available when the heirs or estate were deprived of possession by:

force,
intimidation,
threat,
strategy,
or stealth.

This may occur in inherited property when:

a stranger fences the land immediately after the owner’s death;
a relative secretly occupies the ancestral home while other heirs are away;
a neighbor extends his boundary and enters the inherited lot;
someone enters agricultural or idle estate land without permission and without lawful claim.

Key feature

The plaintiff must show prior physical possession, either by the decedent, the estate, the heirs, or their representative, and that the defendant ousted that possession in one of the prohibited ways.

Timing is critical

Forcible entry is time-sensitive. If the case is not brought within the proper period from dispossession or discovery of stealth, the summary remedy may be lost, and the plaintiff may have to file a different action.

That is why heirs should not wait too long once unlawful entry is discovered.

XI. Unlawful Detainer in Inherited Property Cases

Unlawful detainer applies when possession began lawfully or by tolerance, but later became illegal after termination of the right to stay and refusal to vacate upon demand.

This is common in inherited property disputes involving:

a caretaker allowed by the deceased owner to live on the property;
a sibling-in-law or relative permitted to occupy temporarily;
a family friend staying out of tolerance;
a former worker or overseer living in the premises;
a buyer whose authority is defective but whose initial occupancy was tolerated while matters were being discussed.

Essential concept

The possession is not unlawful at the beginning. It becomes unlawful only after:

withdrawal of permission,
termination of occupancy,
and refusal to leave after demand.

This means a proper demand to vacate is often crucial.

XII. The Importance of Demand to Vacate

In unlawful detainer cases, a demand to vacate is usually central. The heirs should clearly communicate:

that the right to stay has ended,
that the occupant must leave,
and that failure to do so will lead to legal action.

The demand should ideally be:

written,
dated,
specific about the property,
served in a provable way,
and, if rent or compensation is involved, clear on the account or basis.

A vague family quarrel is not the same as a legal demand to vacate.

Why written demand matters

In inherited-property disputes, occupants often later claim:

“I was never asked to leave,”
“I am also family,”
“The decedent allowed me to stay permanently,”
or “We were still negotiating.”

A clear written demand narrows these defenses and helps establish when tolerance ended.

XIII. When Ejectment Is No Longer the Proper Remedy

Many inherited-property possession cases fall outside summary ejectment because:

the possession dispute has lasted too long;
no timely action was filed;
the occupant claims ownership or co-ownership;
the property rights are deeply entangled with succession issues;
the facts no longer fit forcible entry or unlawful detainer;
or there is a serious need to adjudicate ownership, not merely possession.

In those cases, the proper remedy may become:

1. Accion publiciana

An action to recover the better right to possess, usually when dispossession has lasted beyond the period for summary ejectment.

2. Accion reivindicatoria

An action to recover ownership and possession.

Families often resist these because they take longer, but filing the wrong summary action can lead to dismissal.

XIV. Accion Publiciana and Inherited Property

Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover possession when the summary period for ejectment has passed, or when the facts do not fit forcible entry or unlawful detainer.

This is often the correct remedy when:

a stranger has occupied inherited land for years;
the heirs delayed action;
possession is now contested under color of right;
or the issue is the better right to possess rather than immediate recovery from recent unlawful withholding.

This action allows fuller litigation of possession rights than ejectment, though ownership may still arise only insofar as necessary to determine possession.

In inherited-property disputes, accion publiciana often becomes the practical remedy when the family “waited too long” or when the possession story is already old and complicated.

XV. Accion Reivindicatoria and Inherited Property

Accion reivindicatoria is the action to recover ownership and possession from someone wrongfully possessing the property.

This is usually necessary when:

the defendant denies the heirs’ title entirely;
the defendant claims ownership through deed, sale, donation, tax declaration, or adverse possession theory;
a buyer from one heir claims the whole property;
the property has been wrongfully titled or transferred;
or the real battle is over ownership itself, not just physical occupancy.

In inherited-property disputes, reivindicatory action is often paired with:

annulment of sale,
reconveyance,
cancellation of title,
partition,
or declaration of nullity of documents.

This is no longer a simple possession case. It is a full property-rights case.

XVI. Buyers from Only One Heir: A Frequent Possession Problem

A common scenario is this: one heir, before partition, sells the property or a specific portion to a third person, who then occupies it and excludes the other heirs.

Legal complication

Before partition, one heir generally cannot convey more than his or her hereditary or ideal share in common property. A purported sale of a specific definite portion may create serious issues if it disregards the rights of the other co-heirs.

Possession consequences

The buyer may then enter the property and claim:

“I bought this from an heir.” But the others may respond:
“That heir had no authority to transfer the entire property or a specific segregated part.”

These disputes often cannot be solved by bare ejectment alone. They may require:

partition,
annulment or partial nullity of sale,
reivindicatory action,
recovery of possession,
and determination of the extent of the seller-heir’s rights.

The occupant is not always a pure stranger, but neither is the occupant necessarily protected against the co-heirs.

XVII. Caretakers, Overseers, and Tolerated Occupants

Many inherited properties were previously watched over by:

caretaker families,
farm overseers,
family retainers,
drivers,
helpers,
or trusted friends of the deceased.

After death, these persons sometimes remain and later claim:

ownership,
permanent occupancy,
reimbursement,
or right to stay indefinitely.

Legal analysis

If they entered only by tolerance or authority of the owner, their possession may be terminated. If they refuse to vacate after proper demand, unlawful detainer may be available, assuming the case is timely and the facts fit.

But caution is needed where the occupant claims:

lease,
agricultural tenancy,
compensation agreements,
agency coupled with possession,
or reimbursement for improvements.

Those claims may complicate the case and may require more than summary ejectment.

XVIII. Agricultural Land and Claims of Tenancy

Inherited property is often rural land. This creates a special problem: the occupant may claim to be a tenant, agricultural lessee, or lawful cultivator.

This changes everything.

Why tenancy matters

If tenancy exists, the case may not be an ordinary ejectment or possession action in the usual civil forum. Agricultural relations are governed by a specialized body of law and may fall under agrarian jurisdictional rules.

Families commonly make this mistake

Heirs often call the occupant a “squatter,” but if the occupant can show the elements of tenancy or agricultural leasehold, the legal remedy is very different.

Thus, before filing ejectment over inherited farmland, the heirs must determine whether the occupant is:

a mere caretaker,
a tolerated cultivator,
or an actual agricultural tenant.

This distinction is critical.

XIX. Relatives Who Are Not Heirs

A frequent emotional and legal problem involves relatives who are not actual heirs, such as:

in-laws,
cousins,
nephews or nieces not inheriting by representation in the specific case,
live-in partners without successional rights in the property at issue,
or relatives of the deceased’s caregiver.

These persons often say:

“I am family, so I have a right to stay.”

But kinship alone does not create successional title. If such a person is not actually an heir or lawful possessor, the heirs may seek removal, subject to the correct remedy.

Still, families should not assume that every “relative” occupant is a co-heir. Succession rights depend on law, not social closeness.

XX. Surviving Spouse, Surviving Partner, and Family Occupancy

A surviving spouse’s rights over inherited property are very different from those of a non-spouse partner or unrelated occupant.

A. Surviving spouse

A lawful surviving spouse is an heir and cannot ordinarily be treated as an ordinary intruder in estate property.

B. Surviving partner without marital status

A surviving live-in partner may or may not have property-related claims depending on facts, but not automatically as a legal heir to the decedent’s estate.

C. Other resident family members

Children, parents, siblings, and other relatives may have different rights depending on succession law and occupancy circumstances.

In practice, recovery of possession from a surviving spouse or heir is usually not handled as standard ejectment alone. It often requires estate, partition, or ownership proceedings.

XXI. The Effect of Partition

Once the estate is partitioned, the analysis becomes much clearer.

After valid partition:

each heir receives a definite property or definite portion,
exclusive possession may become clearer,
and a co-heir who was once merely an undivided co-owner may now be an occupant of property adjudicated to another.

At that stage, if a former co-heir refuses to vacate the portion adjudicated to another, the remedy may become more straightforward, because the ambiguity of undivided co-ownership has been reduced.

Thus, in some inherited-property disputes, partition is the necessary first step before effective recovery of exclusive possession.

XXII. Extrajudicial Settlement Versus Judicial Settlement

Inherited-property possession disputes often arise before or during:

extrajudicial settlement,
judicial settlement,
or administration proceedings.

If there is an extrajudicial settlement

The heirs may have agreed on distribution, which can strengthen possession claims if properly documented and implemented.

If there is judicial settlement or administration

The executor or administrator may play a central role in protecting estate property and recovering possession.

Why this matters

A person filing ejectment or possession action without regard to ongoing estate proceedings can create procedural confusion or standing issues.

Thus, succession procedure and possession remedy must be coordinated.

XXIII. Improvements Introduced by the Occupant

Occupants of inherited property often claim:

“I built the house,”
“I paid for repairs,”
“I developed the land,”
“I planted crops,”
or “I improved it for years.”

These claims do not automatically defeat the heirs’ right to recover possession. But they may affect:

reimbursement,
rights of a possessor in good faith or bad faith,
removal of improvements,
accounting,
and equitable considerations.

A family should not assume that winning possession ends the case. The law may still have to address:

useful improvements,
necessary expenses,
and fruits or rentals.

XXIV. Fruits, Rentals, and Accounting

Possession disputes over inherited property are often also about money.

Questions commonly arise:

Must the occupying co-heir account for rentals collected?
Must a stranger pay reasonable compensation for use?
Can the heirs recover fruits or produce harvested from the property?
Is an accounting necessary before final resolution?

Co-heir context

If one co-heir possessed the property and excluded the others, accounting may be appropriate, especially after clear repudiation or exclusive appropriation of fruits.

Stranger context

If a non-heir occupied the property without right, the heirs may seek compensation, rentals, or damages, depending on the nature of the action and proof.

Possession cases are therefore often incomplete without an accompanying claim for accounting or damages.

XXV. Can the Heirs Use Self-Help and Physically Remove the Occupant?

As a general rule, families should be extremely careful. Even if morally certain they are the owners, they should not casually:

break locks,
demolish structures,
cut utilities,
use force,
throw out belongings,
or mobilize private armed removal.

Philippine law generally protects peaceable possession and channels dispossession through lawful process. Unilateral self-help can expose the heirs to:

criminal complaints,
civil damages,
injunctions,
and loss of procedural advantage.

The safer course is legal process.

XXVI. Barangay Conciliation and Possession Disputes

Depending on the parties and location, barangay conciliation requirements may arise before court action. This is an important procedural point.

In neighborhood, family, or local land possession disputes, failure to comply with required prior barangay processes can cause delay or dismissal, subject to exceptions recognized by law.

Heirs should not ignore pre-filing procedural rules simply because the property came from a deceased parent or grandparent.

XXVII. Proof Needed in Inherited Property Possession Cases

A strong possession case usually requires organized proof. Common documents include:

death certificate of the decedent;
title or tax declaration of the property;
proof of heirship where relevant;
extrajudicial settlement, partition, or letters of administration if available;
photographs of possession or occupation;
written demand to vacate;
affidavits from neighbors or witnesses;
proof of prior possession by the decedent or heirs;
receipts, tax payments, utility records, or caretaker records;
deeds or documents relied on by the occupant;
and evidence of exclusion, force, stealth, or tolerance.

In inherited-property cases, it is not enough to prove “family ownership” vaguely. The plaintiff must connect:

the decedent’s property,
the plaintiff’s legal relation to it,
the defendant’s manner of entry or withholding,
and the specific remedy sought.

XXVIII. Prescription, Delay, and Why Waiting Is Dangerous

Families often delay because they hope the conflict will calm down. This is risky.

Delay can:

defeat the use of summary ejectment;
strengthen the occupant’s practical hold;
complicate evidence;
encourage further building or transfer;
create tax, title, or possessory complications;
and make courts view the case as a full-blown ownership dispute rather than a possession case.

A person who waits years after being dispossessed may still have remedies, but not always the fast ones.

XXIX. Possession by Tolerance and the Family Problem

Many inherited-property disputes begin with tolerance:

“Let him stay there for now.”
“She can use the house until we settle the estate.”
“The caretaker can remain temporarily.”
“The cousin can occupy the vacant room.”

Later, when the family wants the property back, the occupant claims:

permanent permission,
ownership,
contribution,
or heirship.

This is why families should document temporary occupancy clearly. Even simple written acknowledgment that occupancy is by permission only can prevent later confusion.

Unclear family tolerance is one of the biggest generators of unlawful detainer cases.

XXX. Heirship Must Sometimes Be Proved First

In some cases, the real preliminary issue is not possession but heirship itself.

If the claimant says:

“I am an heir, therefore I can recover possession,” but the defendant disputes that heirship, then the court may need to address succession facts first, or the action may become more complex than a simple ejectment case.

This often happens in disputes involving:

illegitimate children,
second families,
unrecognized relationships,
contested marriages,
or missing settlement documents.

Thus, recovery of possession of inherited property sometimes requires preliminary clarification of who the lawful heirs actually are.

XXXI. Co-Ownership Repudiation

A co-heir’s possession is not usually adverse to the others unless there is a clear repudiation of co-ownership communicated or made unmistakable.

This matters when one heir has possessed the property for a long time. Mere long occupancy alone does not automatically extinguish the rights of the others. But if the occupying heir:

clearly denies the rights of the others,
holds the property as sole owner,
excludes them openly,
and performs acts inconsistent with co-ownership, then the case changes.

This may affect:

possession suits,
accounting,
prescription issues,
and claims of exclusive ownership.

Families often overlook the importance of proving the exact moment when tolerance or shared possession became hostile or exclusive.

XXXII. Interaction with Partition Actions

Sometimes the correct legal strategy is not to file ejectment first, but to file:

partition,
settlement of estate,
declaration of heirs,
annulment of sale,
or reivindicatory action, and include recovery of possession as part of broader relief.

This is especially true when:

the occupant is a co-heir;
the property is still undivided;
specific physical areas are disputed;
or title and succession are deeply intertwined.

The best remedy is the one that solves the actual dispute, not just the most familiar word like “ejectment.”

XXXIII. Damages in Possession Cases

Heirs recovering possession may also seek damages where justified, such as:

reasonable compensation for use and occupancy,
lost rentals,
damage to the property,
destruction of improvements,
attorney’s fees in proper cases,
and costs.

But damages are not automatic. They must be pleaded and proved.

Likewise, an occupant may also raise claims for:

reimbursement of necessary expenses,
useful improvements,
or other property-related claims depending on good or bad faith.

Possession litigation often has a financial tail.

XXXIV. Common Mistakes of Heirs

Heirs often make these errors:

assuming title in the decedent’s name is enough to eject anyone instantly;
suing one co-heir as though he were a stranger;
failing to make a proper written demand to vacate;
waiting too long and losing ejectment as a summary remedy;
ignoring estate proceedings or partition issues;
filing possession cases without joining necessary heirs;
overlooking tenancy claims on agricultural land;
relying on self-help instead of court process;
and failing to preserve proof of tolerance or prior possession.

These mistakes can turn a strong moral claim into a weak procedural case.

XXXV. Common Mistakes of Occupants

Occupants often wrongly assume:

living there for years automatically makes them owners;
being “like family” makes them heirs;
improvements automatically give permanent occupancy rights;
a sale from one heir transfers full title to the whole property;
lack of estate settlement means no one can sue them;
or possession alone defeats inheritance rights.

These assumptions are also dangerous and often legally wrong.

XXXVI. Practical Legal Checklist

When dealing with inherited property and a possessor who refuses to leave, the right sequence is usually:

Identify the occupant: co-heir, relative, caretaker, buyer, tenant, stranger?
Determine how possession began: force, stealth, permission, tolerance, lease, inheritance claim?
Check the status of the estate: partitioned, co-owned, extrajudicially settled, judicially administered?
Determine what is really needed: immediate possession, better right to possess, or ownership adjudication?
Make a formal written demand if unlawful detainer is the theory.
Check if tenancy or agrarian issues exist.
Gather succession and property documents.
File the correct action, not merely the fastest-sounding one.

This is the safest legal approach.

XXXVII. The Strongest Legal Principle on the Topic

The clearest way to state the governing rule is this:

In the Philippines, ejectment and recovery of possession of inherited property depend not merely on heirship or title, but on the character of the defendant’s possession, the existence of co-heir rights or co-ownership, the timing of dispossession, and whether the plaintiff seeks summary possession, better possessory right, or ownership itself.

That is the most accurate legal principle.

XXXVIII. Final Legal Position

In Philippine law, inherited property possession disputes cannot be solved by inheritance rules alone. The correct remedy depends on the interplay of succession law, co-ownership, property law, and procedural rules on possession actions.

Where the occupant is a stranger or non-heir, and the facts fit, the heirs may recover possession through:

forcible entry if dispossession was by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth;
unlawful detainer if possession began lawfully or by tolerance but became illegal after demand to vacate;
accion publiciana if the summary ejectment period has passed and the issue is better right to possess;
or accion reivindicatoria if ownership and possession must both be recovered.

Where the occupant is a co-heir, ordinary ejectment is often not the proper first theory, because inherited property before partition is generally co-owned, and one co-heir cannot usually treat another as a mere intruder. In such cases, the more appropriate remedies may include:

partition,
settlement of estate,
accounting,
recovery of possession after partition,
or broader ownership-based actions.

The most important practical rule is this:

Before filing any case, determine whether the occupant is a co-heir or a third person, how possession began, whether demand is required, whether the estate is partitioned, and whether the real issue is possession alone or ownership itself.

That is the proper Philippine legal approach to ejectment and recovery of possession of inherited property.