Evicting a tenant in the Philippines is a court process. Even if a tenant is clearly in breach—unpaid rent, expired contract, or refusal to leave—a landlord generally cannot lawfully remove the occupant by force, lockouts, utility cutoffs, or intimidation. The legally recognized route for most “tenant won’t leave” situations is the ejectment case called unlawful detainer under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

This article explains (1) what unlawful detainer is, (2) the practical timeline from demand to sheriff’s eviction, and (3) why the widely repeated “3-month notice” rule is usually a myth—plus when longer notice actually can be required.

1) The Core Concepts: Possession, Not Ownership

Ejectment is about possession (physical occupancy)

Philippine ejectment cases are designed to quickly decide who has the better right to physical possession (possession de facto). Ownership issues are generally not decided in ejectment (and if discussed at all, it’s only to clarify who is entitled to possess).

The two ejectment cases

Forcible Entry (forcible entry) The occupant took possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Time limit: generally within 1 year from actual entry (or from discovery in stealth cases).
Unlawful Detainer (unlawful detainer) The occupant’s possession started lawfully (lease, permission, tolerance), but later became illegal when their right to stay ended and they refused to leave. Time limit: generally within 1 year from the last demand to vacate (more on this below).

Most landlord–tenant disputes involving expired leases, nonpayment of rent, or breach of lease conditions fall under unlawful detainer.

2) What Counts as Unlawful Detainer

Unlawful detainer usually applies when any of these happens:

Lease expired, tenant stays anyway (holdover).
Nonpayment of rent, tenant stays despite demand.
Violation of lease terms (e.g., illegal subleasing, prohibited use, nuisance, material breach) and tenant stays despite demand.
Possession by tolerance (you allowed someone to stay—caretaker, relative, employee housing—then you withdrew permission and demanded they leave).

The key is that the occupant’s possession becomes unlawful after a lawful beginning, and the refusal continues after proper demand.

3) The Mandatory Demand: Your Case Often Succeeds or Fails Here

The “demand to pay/comply and vacate” is usually required

Before filing unlawful detainer, the landlord generally must serve a written demand on the occupant:

Demand to pay rent or comply with lease conditions, and
Demand to vacate if they do not comply.

This is not a mere courtesy letter—this demand is often a jurisdictional or essential requirement in unlawful detainer. Sloppy demand letters and weak proof of service are common reasons cases get dismissed.

Waiting period after demand (important and often misunderstood)

Rule 70 requires that after demand, the landlord must wait:

15 days (in cases involving land) or
5 days (in cases involving buildings)

before filing the ejectment case, unless the parties’ contract provides otherwise.

Many residential rentals are “buildings” (apartments, condos, houses). Agricultural or raw land leases may fall under “land.” When in doubt, the safer practice is to comply with the applicable waiting period and document it.

Proof of service matters as much as the demand text

A demand letter should be served in a way you can prove later, such as:

Personal service with signed receipt and witness, or
Registered mail with return card (and keeping the envelope/registry receipts), or
Other verifiable service methods recognized by court practice.

If the tenant refuses to receive, document refusal with witnesses and keep records. Courts are evidence-driven: no proof of demand + service = big risk.

4) The “3-Month Notice” Myth: What the Law Actually Requires

The myth

A common belief is: “You must give a tenant three months’ notice before eviction.” That statement is not a general rule in Philippine unlawful detainer.

The general rule in ejectment (unlawful detainer)

For typical lease violations (including nonpayment or overstaying), the relevant “notice” is:

A written demand to pay/comply and vacate, then
Waiting 5 days (buildings) or 15 days (land), then
Filing unlawful detainer if they still refuse.

That is why “3 months” is often a myth in ordinary ejectment situations.

Why people think it’s 3 months

The “3-month” idea often comes from specific situations, including:

Rent Control rules for covered units The Rent Control Act (and its extensions/amendments over the years) can impose additional requirements for certain low- to moderate-rent residential units within covered rent thresholds. Some grounds (like lessor’s legitimate need for personal use or certain redevelopment situations) may require advance written notice that can be longer than Rule 70’s 5/15 days. Key point: rent control coverage depends on current law, location, monthly rent level, and type of unit—and the covered thresholds and effectivity periods have historically changed over time.
Contractual notice clauses If the lease contract itself requires, say, 30/60/90 days’ notice to terminate in certain cases, that can bind the parties (unless contrary to law or public policy). A court will read the contract.
Month-to-month lease “period” confusion The Civil Code provides rules on lease periods when the contract is indefinite (e.g., rent paid monthly → month-to-month). Some interpret this to mean “long notice,” but it typically supports ending a lease by giving notice consistent with the period (often one month for month-to-month), not automatically three months. Also, even where the lease period is month-to-month, unlawful detainer still revolves around demand and refusal once the right to stay has ended.
“Humanitarian” or informal practices Some barangays, building administrators, or even informal advice may push for longer grace periods. That may be practical diplomacy, but it is not the same as a universal legal requirement.

Bottom line

No universal 3-month notice requirement exists for unlawful detainer.
Longer notice can apply due to rent control coverage, contract terms, or specific statutory grounds—but it is not the default rule for “tenant won’t leave.”

5) The Unlawful Detainer Timeline (From Problem to Sheriff)

Below is a realistic sequence in Philippine practice. Exact duration varies by locality, docket congestion, service delays, and tenant tactics.

Step 0 — Document the basis

Before anything else, assemble:

Lease contract (or proof of permission/tolerance)
Rent ledger, collection history, bounced checks, utility bill allocations (if relevant)
Photos, incident reports, HOA notices (for nuisance/violations)
Proof of ownership/authority (title, tax declaration, SPA if represented)

Step 1 — Serve the written demand (Day 0)

A properly drafted demand typically:

Identifies the property and parties
States the breach (e.g., unpaid rent with month-by-month breakdown)
Demands payment/compliance by a stated deadline
Demands the tenant vacate if they fail
Reserves the right to sue for ejectment, unpaid rent, damages, attorney’s fees

Step 2 — Wait the Rule 70 period (Day 5 or Day 15, typically)

5 days after demand for buildings
15 days after demand for land

If the tenant neither pays nor leaves, the cause of action becomes ripe.

Step 3 — Barangay conciliation (often required before court)

Under the Katarungang Pambarangay system, many disputes between parties residing in the same city/municipality (and within coverage rules) require barangay mediation/conciliation first, and a Certificate to File Action before going to court.

Ejectment disputes are commonly routed through barangay first unless an exception applies. This phase can take weeks, especially if hearings get reset or one party does not appear. Non-appearance can result in dismissal of the barangay complaint or issuance of a certificate depending on who fails to appear and under what circumstances.

Step 4 — File unlawful detainer in the proper court

Unlawful detainer is filed with the Municipal Trial Court / Metropolitan Trial Court / Municipal Circuit Trial Court with territorial jurisdiction over the property.

The complaint usually asks for:

Recovery of possession
Back rent / reasonable compensation for use and occupation
Damages
Attorney’s fees and costs

Step 5 — Summons and Answer (commonly 10 days from service)

Once served with summons, the defendant typically has a short period (commonly 10 days) to file an answer in ejectment cases. Delayed or defective service can add significant time.

Step 6 — Preliminary conference, position papers, affidavits

Ejectment is meant to be summary in nature. Courts often require:

Preliminary conference / mediation attempt
Submission of judicial affidavits and documentary evidence
Position papers or memoranda depending on the court’s process

Step 7 — Judgment (meant to be fast, but varies)

Rule 70 contemplates speed. In practice, timelines can extend due to:

Service issues
Postponements
Motions (even if discouraged in summary procedure)
Court calendar load

Step 8 — Execution: the “immediate executory” rule is powerful

A critical feature of ejectment:

A judgment for the plaintiff is generally immediately executory, even if appealed—unless the defendant perfects an appeal and complies with requirements to stay execution (commonly involving supersedeas bond and periodic deposits of rent/compensation during appeal).

If the defendant fails to meet the requirements, the court may issue a writ of execution, and the sheriff enforces eviction.

Step 9 — Sheriff’s eviction and turnover

Eviction is carried out by the sheriff, often coordinating with barangay/local police for peacekeeping.

A lawful eviction should avoid:

Private force by landlord
Vigilante removal of belongings
Lockouts without a writ
Unilateral utility disconnection intended to coerce departure

Improper self-help can expose the landlord to criminal, civil, or administrative liability depending on the circumstances.

6) The One-Year Filing Window: A Frequent Trap

For unlawful detainer, timing is counted from the last demand

A common and expensive mistake is misunderstanding the one-year rule.

Forcible entry: 1 year from entry (or discovery in stealth)
Unlawful detainer: commonly treated as 1 year from the last demand to vacate (or last demand that clearly terminates the right to possess)

If the landlord delays too long after demand, the summary ejectment route may be lost, forcing a slower ordinary action (often accion publiciana) typically filed in a higher court depending on assessed values/jurisdictional rules.

7) Common Defenses Tenants Raise (and What Usually Matters)

In unlawful detainer, the tenant commonly argues:

No valid demand (or demand didn’t include vacate; or wrong waiting period)
Improper service of demand or summons
Payment or tender/consignation of rent
Lease not yet expired or renewal/tacit renewal claims
Rent control coverage and lack of required statutory notices/grounds
Landlord has no authority (wrong plaintiff, no proof of ownership/authority)
Issues of ownership (usually not controlling, but sometimes raised tactically)

In many cases, the winner is decided by documentation:

A clean contract
Clear computation of arrears
Correct demand and provable service
Proper timing

8) Practical Guidance: Drafting a Strong Demand (Without Overcomplicating)

A demand letter is stronger when it:

States exact amounts due per month (principal + any agreed penalties if enforceable)
Refers to the lease clauses violated
Uses clear language: “PAY/COMPLY AND VACATE”
Gives the correct legal waiting period (5 or 15 days) before suit
Is served in a provable manner

Overly aggressive threats, defamatory statements, or illegal ultimatums (e.g., “we will cut your power tomorrow”) can backfire.

9) Special Situations

Expired lease with continued acceptance of rent

Accepting rent after expiration can create arguments about renewal or tolerance. The legal effect depends on facts and the Civil Code rules on implied new lease and the parties’ conduct. If the goal is to end possession, it is important to communicate termination clearly and handle payments carefully to avoid creating evidence of continued consent.

Sublessees and occupants not on the contract

If the tenant sublets without permission, the landlord may sue the principal tenant and sometimes include other occupants depending on possession facts. Courts focus on who is actually withholding possession.

“Caretaker,” “friend,” “relative” staying by permission

This often becomes unlawful detainer once permission is withdrawn and a proper demand is made. The challenge is usually evidentiary: proving initial tolerance and the later withdrawal.

Not ejectment: when you may need a different case

If the 1-year period is missed, or the facts don’t fit Rule 70 (e.g., disputes over better right to possess beyond ejectment’s scope), the remedy may shift to accion publiciana or other actions. These are typically slower and more formal.

10) Key Takeaways

Unlawful detainer is the standard remedy when possession began lawfully but became illegal after the right to stay ended.
The essential trigger is a proper demand to pay/comply and vacate, plus the 5-day (buildings) / 15-day (land) waiting period.
The “3-month notice” rule is not universal. It may arise from rent control coverage, contractual notice clauses, or certain statutory grounds—not from the default unlawful detainer framework.
Ejectment judgments are typically immediately executory, and the sheriff—not the landlord—implements eviction under a writ.
Timing and documentation decide cases: demand, service proof, and the one-year filing window are frequent failure points.