Ejectment vs. Unlawful Detainer: Evicting Occupants Allowed by a Previous Owner

I. Introduction

Property in the Philippines changes hands constantly—through sale, donation, succession, or corporate transfers. Very often, however, the land or building being sold is not empty: it is occupied by a tenant, a caretaker, relatives of the former owner, or informal settlers whom the previous owner allowed to stay.

When a new owner takes title and wants to recover possession, a key strategic question arises:

Should the new owner file an ejectment case for unlawful detainer, or a different kind of action (often loosely called “ejectment” or “accion publiciana”)?

This article explains, in Philippine context:

  • The different remedies to recover possession of real property
  • What unlawful detainer is, and how it differs from other “ejectment” actions
  • How these rules apply when the occupants were allowed to stay by the previous owner
  • Practical, procedural, and strategic points for both owners and occupants

II. The Four Basic Actions to Recover Possession

Philippine law recognizes four main actions related to possession of real property:

  1. Forcible Entry (FE) – “Pinaalis ako o inagawan ako ng puwesto nang sapilitan o palihim.”

    • Defendant’s entry is illegal from the start (by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth).
    • Must be filed within one (1) year from unlawful entry (or from discovery in case of stealth).
    • Summary action in the Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) under Rule 70.

  2. Unlawful Detainer (UD) – “Legal ka noong una, pero naging illegal dahil ayaw mo nang umalis kahit tapos na ang karapatan mo.”

    • Defendant’s entry is lawful at the beginning (lease, contract, tolerance, etc.).
    • Possession becomes illegal when the right to possess is terminated (e.g., lease expiry, revocation of tolerance, valid demand ignored).
    • Must be filed within one (1) year from the last demand to vacate (or from the last act that made possession unlawful).
    • Also a summary action in the MTC under Rule 70.

  3. Accion Publiciana – “Ordinary action to recover the right to possess” (possession de jure).

    • Used when dispossession or unlawful withholding has lasted more than one year.
    • An ordinary civil action, generally filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) (subject to jurisdictional rules).
    • Slower and more formal than an ejectment case.

  4. Accion Reivindicatoria – “Action to recover ownership and possession.”

    • Plaintiff asserts ownership and asks the court to recognize it and order defendants to vacate.
    • Also filed in the RTC.

Important: In Philippine practice, “ejectment” is often used generically to refer to forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases under Rule 70. Sometimes, however, lawyers and judges loosely call any action that seeks to oust an occupant an “ejectment” suit. Context is everything.

In this article, when we say ejectment, we generally mean:

  • Unlawful detainer (UD) and other summary actions under Rule 70 in the MTC, as opposed to accion publiciana in the RTC.

III. What Is Unlawful Detainer?

Unlawful detainer is a summary action designed to quickly restore physical or material possession (possession de facto) to the party entitled to it.

A. Elements of Unlawful Detainer

The complaint should allege:

  1. Initial lawful possession by the defendant

    • By contract (e.g., lease, agency, lease-purchase)
    • By tolerance (the owner allowed them to stay)
    • By some other legal title from the owner or a person authorized to allow possession

  2. Expiration or termination of the right to possess

    • Lease period expired
    • Contract was rescinded or terminated
    • Tolerance was withdrawn
    • Conditions in the contract were violated

  3. Demand to vacate (and/or to pay and vacate)

    • The plaintiff (or their representative) made a demand to vacate (or to pay and vacate).
    • This is usually done through written demand letters, sometimes preceded by verbal demands.

  4. Refusal to vacate

    • Despite the demand, the defendant refuses or fails to vacate.

  5. Filing within one year

    • The complaint is filed within one (1) year from the last demand to vacate (or from the date the possession became unlawful, depending on the factual theory).

If any of these key elements is missing, the case may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an ejectment case, though it may be refiled as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

B. Jurisdiction and Nature

  • Court: MTC/MeTC (or MCTC), regardless of assessed value or size of the property.
  • Issue: Only physical or material possession (possession de facto) is in issue.
  • Ownership: The court may look at evidence of ownership only to resolve who has the better right to physical possession, but the judgment is not conclusive on ownership, except in limited situations where ownership is the sole issue and is squarely passed upon.

IV. Unlawful Detainer vs. Accion Publiciana (“Ejectment” in the Broader Sense)

A. Key Distinctions

  1. Time Element

    • Unlawful Detainer: Within one (1) year from last demand or from the date possession became unlawful.
    • Accion Publiciana: After that one-year period has lapsed.

  2. Court & Procedure

    • UD (Ejectment): Summary procedure in the MTC.
    • Accion Publiciana: Ordinary civil action typically in the RTC.

  3. Main Issue

    • UD: Focus on actual, physical possession.
    • Accion Publiciana: Focus on better right to possess (possession de jure), though still not primarily about ownership.

  4. Speed and Remedies

    • UD: Faster; judgment is immediately executory upon appeal unless supersedeas bond and periodic deposits are made.
    • Accion Publiciana: Slower; normal civil procedure applies.

For a new owner wanting to evict occupants allowed by the previous owner, proper classification is crucial. Wrong choice can mean dismissal and delay.

V. Occupants Allowed by the Previous Owner: Nature of Their Possession

In many cases, the defendant’s initial possession stems from a relationship with the previous owner, not the current one. Common scenarios:

  1. Lessee or tenant of the previous owner

    • The previous owner and the occupant had a lease contract, written or verbal.

  2. Caretaker or overseer

    • The previous owner allowed a person or family to stay on the property as caretaker, sometimes with no rent or nominal rent.

  3. Relatives or friends allowed to stay (tolerance)

    • Family members or friends were allowed to occupy out of generosity or tolerance.

  4. Buyer on installment or “rent-to-own” arrangement

    • The occupant is paying installments to the previous owner under some contract to sell or informal agreement.

  5. Informal settlers tolerated by the previous owner

    • The previous owner knowingly allowed them to remain or did not contest their presence.

In all of these, the central question for unlawful detainer vs. other actions is:

Was the defendant’s possession originally lawful (by contract or tolerance), and did it later become unlawful by termination of that right?

If yes, unlawful detainer is usually available—even to the new owner, subject to time limits.

VI. Effect of Sale or Transfer on Existing Occupants

A. General Rule: The Buyer Steps into the Shoes of the Previous Owner

Under the Civil Code, contracts generally bind only the parties, but leases and real rights may attach to the property and bind successors-in-interest, particularly when:

  • The lessee is in actual possession; and/or
  • The lease is noted or annotated, or the buyer had knowledge.

Practical rule applied by courts:

  • The buyer of property already occupied by a lessee or tolerated occupant is generally bound to respect that occupant’s possession for as long as the underlying right is valid.
  • Once that right expires or is validly terminated, the buyer can demand that the occupant vacate and may file unlawful detainer if the refusal persists.

Thus, in many cases:

  • The new owner becomes the new lessor or licensor by operation of law.

  • Rights and obligations pass:

    • The occupant must now pay rent to the new owner (if a lease).
    • The new owner must honor the lease or tolerated possession until it is properly terminated.

B. Lease vs. Pure Tolerance

  1. Lease

    • If there is a valid lease:

      • It continues despite the sale, as a rule.

      • The buyer cannot just eject the tenant before lease expiry, unless:

        • The lease is invalid; or
        • There is contractual ground to terminate; or
        • Special laws (e.g., rent control, socialized housing, etc.) affect the relationship.

    • Upon expiry of the lease or valid termination, if the lessee refuses to vacate despite proper demand, the buyer may bring unlawful detainer.

  2. Pure Tolerance

    • If the occupant was merely allowed by the previous owner out of tolerance (no rent, no fixed term):

      • Their possession is lawful while tolerance exists.

      • Once the new owner acquires title, they may:

        • Recognize and continue the tolerance, or
        • Revoke it by demand (written or verbal).

      • When the new owner clearly withdraws tolerance and demands that they vacate, any continued possession becomes illegal, and the cause of action for unlawful detainer arises.

VII. When Should the New Owner File Unlawful Detainer?

A. Requirements Specific to a New Owner

For a new owner (buyer, donee, heir) to file unlawful detainer against occupants allowed by the previous owner, the complaint should establish:

  1. Plaintiff’s right to possess

    • Ownership (through TCT, Deed of Sale, etc.) or some other right giving entitlement to possession.
    • It should show that the property subject of the case is the same as that in the title.

  2. Defendant’s initial lawful possession under the previous owner

    • For example:

      • Lease contract with previous owner
      • Permission as caretaker or family member
      • Tolerated occupancy

  3. How plaintiff succeeded to the previous owner

    • Sale, donation, succession, corporate merger, etc.

  4. Termination of the defendant’s right

    • Lease expiration, breach, or revocation of tolerance.
    • Explicit allegation that the new owner notified defendant of the termination and demanded that they vacate.

  5. Demand and refusal

    • Demand letter(s) to vacate (and/or to pay), and the defendant’s refusal or failure to comply.

  6. Filing within one year from the last demand

    • The complaint must be filed within one year from the last valid demand to vacate.

If these are clearly alleged, unlawful detainer is generally the proper remedy.

B. What if More Than One Year Has Passed?

If the new owner waits too long and more than one year passes from the time possession became unlawful (commonly counted from the last demand), unlawful detainer is no longer available. The remedy then shifts to an accion publiciana, which:

  • Is filed in the RTC;
  • Follows ordinary procedure (longer and more complex); and
  • Focuses on the right to possess (possession de jure) rather than mere physical possession.

This is why timely written demand letters and prompt filing matter greatly.

VIII. Procedural Considerations

A. Demand to Vacate

While the Rules of Court do not always require a specific form, best practice is:

  • Serve a written demand to vacate (or to pay and vacate) on the occupants.

  • Indicate:

    • Your status as new owner;
    • Ground for termination (sale, lease expiry, revocation of tolerance);
    • A reasonable period to vacate (e.g., 15–30 days); and
    • Warning that legal action will be taken upon failure.

Evidence to keep:

  • The demand letter itself;
  • Proof of service (registered mail receipts, return card, personal service acknowledgment, barangay service, etc.).

These documents will be crucial to:

  • Prove demand, and
  • Fix the one-year period for filing unlawful detainer.

B. Barangay Conciliation

Under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, disputes between parties who:

  • Are natural persons, and
  • Reside in the same city/municipality (or in barangays covered by the conciliation system),

must generally undergo barangay conciliation before going to court.

Key points:

  • For unlawful detainer cases, barangay conciliation is usually a condition precedent unless:

    • The parties reside in different cities/municipalities that are not adjacent barangays under a single Lupon; or
    • One party is a juridical person (e.g., corporation, government agency); or
    • Other statutory exceptions apply.

Failure to comply can be ground for dismissal for lack of cause of action or failure to comply with a condition precedent.

C. Who Should Be Impleaded?

The complaint should name:

  • The main occupant(s); and

  • “All persons claiming rights under them,” which may include:

    • Family members;
    • Sub-lessees or assigns;
    • Unnamed persons (“John Does”) if necessary.

This ensures that everyone actually in possession is bound by the judgment and subject to execution.

D. Reliefs That May Be Claimed

In an unlawful detainer case, the plaintiff may seek:

  • Recovery of physical possession of the property;
  • Unpaid rentals or reasonable compensation for use and occupation (often called “reasonable rent” when no lease price is agreed);
  • Attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

IX. Common Defenses and Issues in Cases Against Occupants Allowed by a Previous Owner

  1. “We Own the Property, Not You.”

    • Defendants may claim they are owners, not mere occupants by tolerance.
    • In an unlawful detainer case, the MTC may provisionally look into ownership only to decide who has the better right to physical possession, but this does not permanently settle ownership.
    • If there is a substantial issue of ownership and UD is mis-classified, courts may suggest an ordinary action in the RTC instead.

  2. “Our Possession Was Never by Tolerance.”

    • Defendants sometimes argue that their possession was adverse from the start, not by tolerance.

    • If the court is convinced that:

      • Entry was by force/stealth → case should be forcible entry filed within one year from entry.
      • Possession is adverse and has lasted long → remedy is accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

    • Plaintiffs must carefully plead and prove prior tolerance or contract to sustain UD.

  3. “No Valid Demand Was Made.”

    • Defendants may say:

      • They never received the demand; or
      • The demand was defective.

    • Courts generally accept demand letters backed by proof of service, but precision in dates and method of service is important.

    • Without proper demand, no cause of action for UD may exist.

  4. “One-Year Period Has Already Lapsed.”

    • Defendants may argue the case is out of time, and thus the MTC has no jurisdiction.

    • Courts will look at the allegations in the complaint and the evidence of demand:

      • If more than one year has indeed passed, the appropriate action is accion publiciana.

  5. “The Buyer Is Not Bound by Our Lease.”

    • This is common where:

      • The lease is unregistered; or
      • The buyer claims lack of knowledge.

    • Courts often consider:

      • Was the lessee in actual, visible possession at the time of sale? If yes, the buyer is expected to have noticed.
      • What do the sale documents say? Is the sale “subject to existing leases/occupants”?

    • As a general rule, a buyer of occupied property is frequently held to take it subject to the rights of occupants clearly in possession, especially in leases.

X. Practical Guidance

A. For New Owners (Buyers)

  1. Before Buying

    • Inspect the property physically; talk to occupants.

    • Ask for:

      • Copies of leases or agreements;
      • Any receipts of rent or payments; and
      • Any pending cases or disputes.

    • Explicitly address in the Deed of Sale:

      • Whether the sale is “free of occupants” or “subject to existing tenants”; and
      • Who is responsible for ejecting them (seller or buyer).

  2. After Buying

    • Notify the occupants in writing:

      • That you are the new owner; and
      • Where future rents (if any) should be paid.

    • Decide whether to keep or end any arrangements:

      • If lease: respect it until expiry, unless you can legally terminate.
      • If pure tolerance: consider giving a reasonable period to vacate.

  3. If You Want Them Out

    • Serve a formal written demand to vacate (or to pay and vacate).

    • Preserve proof of service.

    • If they refuse to vacate:

      • Assess the dates carefully.
      • If within one year from demand and possession is clearly originally lawful → file unlawful detainer in the MTC.
      • If beyond one year → consider accion publiciana in the RTC.

  4. Document Everything

    • Keep copies of:

      • TCT and Deed of Sale;
      • All letters and messages;
      • Photos of the property and occupation;
      • Any lease or other agreements you find.

These will be crucial in any case, especially if the defendants try to recharacterize their possession.

B. For Occupants Allowed by the Previous Owner

  1. Know the Basis of Your Possession

    • Are you a lessee with a written or verbal lease?
    • A caretaker?
    • A family member staying out of generosity?
    • An installment buyer under a contract to sell?

  2. Keep Your Papers

    • Collect and keep:

      • Leases or agreements;
      • Proof of rent or installment payments;
      • Any written permission from the previous owner.

  3. Respond to Notices Properly

    • Don’t ignore demand letters.

    • You may:

      • Negotiate for more time;
      • Assert your rights (e.g., lease still valid, payments up to date);
      • Seek legal counsel promptly.

  4. Understand that Sale Often Changes Who, Not What

    • The new owner often simply replaces the old one as lessor or licensor.
    • If the lease is still in force, you can usually insist that it be respected.
    • But if the lease has expired or you were merely staying by tolerance, the new owner can terminate your right and lawfully demand that you vacate.

XI. Conclusion

In Philippine law, evicting occupants allowed by a previous owner is not just a matter of sending a brusque notice and changing locks. It requires a careful understanding of:

  • How the occupants originally came into possession (lease, tolerance, or otherwise);
  • When and how that right ended;
  • The one-year time limit and other requisites of unlawful detainer; and
  • The distinction between summary ejectment (UD) and accion publiciana, which is slower but more appropriate once the one-year period lapses or when possession was not originally lawful.

For new owners, the key is timely and well-documented action: identify the nature of the occupants’ right, serve clear demands, observe barangay conciliation when required, and file the proper case promptly.

For occupants, understanding the source and strength of your right to possess—and preserving proof of it—can be the difference between a lawful stay and a legally enforceable judgment to vacate.

Ultimately, “ejectment vs. unlawful detainer” in this context is about choosing the correct procedural vehicle for the same fundamental objective: aligning actual physical possession with the party who, under law and equity, is entitled to it.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login