1) The situation after you buy: ownership is not automatic possession

Buying a house (even with a notarized deed) does not always mean you can immediately move in or take physical control. In Philippine law, ownership and possession are related but distinct. A buyer may own the property yet still need a court process to lawfully remove occupants—especially if they are unwilling to leave.

Two common mistakes lead to liability:

Self-help eviction (changing locks, cutting utilities, removing belongings, threats).
Skipping the correct case (filing the wrong action in the wrong court or using the wrong theory of possession).

If you remove occupants without legal process, you risk criminal exposure (e.g., coercion, threats, trespass depending on facts), civil damages, and sometimes administrative issues if police assistance was improperly sought.

2) Identify who the occupants are (because the legal route depends on it)

Before choosing the remedy, classify the occupants:

A. Former owner / mortgagor / borrower (after foreclosure or sale)

Common in foreclosures, “assume balance” deals gone wrong, or sales with holdover sellers.

B. Tenants / lessees

There may be written leases, verbal leases, or implied leases. Tenants can have rights under rent laws and civil law rules.

C. Informal occupants / “squatters”

But note: “informal settler” is not one legal category. Some occupy with tolerance; others by force; others under mistaken belief of right.

D. Relatives or invitees of the former owner

Often the most contentious. Their possession is frequently traced back to the former owner’s tolerance.

E. Co-owners, heirs, or claimants with color of title

If the occupant asserts ownership or co-ownership, the case selection becomes critical.

The key question is: Is the dispute essentially about physical possession, or about ownership/title? Ejectment can proceed even if ownership is disputed, but only in limited ways (possession-focused).

3) The main legal remedies: ejectment (MTC) vs. reivindicatoria (RTC) vs. special rules (foreclosure)

Overview table (conceptual)

Forcible entry (ejectment): dispossession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
Unlawful detainer (ejectment): possession was initially lawful (by contract, tolerance, permission), but became illegal after the right ended and demand to vacate was made.
Accion publiciana: recovery of better right to possess when the one-year ejectment window is not available.
Accion reivindicatoria: recovery of ownership (and possession as an incident).
Writ of possession (foreclosure contexts): a streamlined remedy in certain foreclosures, distinct from ejectment.

Ejectment cases (forcible entry and unlawful detainer) are generally filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) and are designed to be summary and possession-centered.

4) Unlawful detainer after buying a house: when it applies

A. Core concept

Unlawful detainer applies when:

The occupant’s entry/possession began lawfully (lease, permission, tolerance, or other authority); and
That right expired or was terminated; and
The occupant refuses to leave after a proper demand to vacate.

Typical post-purchase scenarios that fit unlawful detainer:

The seller stayed temporarily and then refused to surrender the premises.
Occupants remained by the former owner’s tolerance; after transfer, the new owner withdrew tolerance and demanded they vacate.
A lease expired; the buyer as new owner continues the landlord role and terminates/does not renew, then demands surrender.
A buyer allows the former owner/occupants to stay while paperwork is completed; later demand is made and they refuse.

B. The “one-year” rule (critical)

For unlawful detainer, the filing period is commonly framed as within one year from the last demand to vacate (because the cause of action accrues upon refusal after demand). This is why the demand letter and proof of receipt become the spine of the case.

If you wait too long after demand (or cannot prove demand), you may be pushed into accion publiciana (generally in the RTC) instead of summary ejectment.

5) Forcible entry after buying: when it applies

Forcible entry is different: it addresses how the occupant took possession. It applies if the occupant originally entered by:

force,
intimidation,
threat,
strategy,
or stealth.

It is usually filed within one year from actual entry or from discovery in cases of stealth.

In a purchase context, forcible entry sometimes appears when:

A third party “moves in” while the property is vacant after the sale.
Occupants re-enter after leaving, using stealth or force.

If the occupant has been there for a long time and originally entered with permission/tolerance, forcible entry is usually not the right fit; unlawful detainer is more likely.

6) Ejectment vs. title disputes: what if the occupant claims ownership?

A common defense is: “I own it,” “the sale is void,” “I’m an heir,” “I have a deed,” “I have a pending case.”

In ejectment:

Courts focus on material/physical possession (possession de facto).
Title issues may be looked at only to determine who has the better right to possess, but the judgment is not a final adjudication of ownership.

This means:

You can often still pursue ejectment even if the occupant raises ownership, as long as the case is truly about possession and is timely.
But if resolving possession necessarily requires resolving complex ownership issues, or the ejectment time window is unavailable, you may need accion publiciana or reivindicatoria.

7) Demand to vacate: what it must contain and how it is served

A. Why demand matters

In unlawful detainer, demand is not a formality—it is often a jurisdictional/practical requirement because it sets the cause of action in motion.

B. What a demand letter usually includes

Identification of the property (address, description).
Proof/statement of your right (e.g., buyer/new owner; attach or cite deed/TCT if appropriate).
Clear directive to vacate and surrender possession within a specified period.
If there is rent or compensation for use and occupation, demand payment and state the rate/basis.
Warning that failure will compel filing of an ejectment case and claim for damages/attorney’s fees.

C. How to serve (proof is everything)

Best practices:

Personal service with acknowledgment.
Registered mail with return card.
Courier with signed proof of delivery.
Service to the actual occupant(s) and, where sensible, to the household head.

Practical tip: demand should be addressed to all known occupants (named where possible) and “all persons claiming rights under them,” because ejectment judgments can be undermined if necessary parties are not properly covered.

8) Who should be named as defendants

Name:

The principal occupant(s) in actual possession.
Those claiming a right to possess (e.g., the former owner still residing, tenants, subtenants, household head).
“John/Jane Does” is sometimes used cautiously for unknown occupants, but you still need to identify defendants as much as possible.

Mis-joinder or omission can delay enforcement. In enforcement, sheriffs act against those bound by the judgment; unclear party coverage creates friction.

9) Where to file and what to allege (MTC ejectment)

A. Venue

Ejectment is filed in the court with territorial jurisdiction over the property location.

B. What the complaint generally alleges

For unlawful detainer:

Plaintiff’s right to possess (ownership, purchase, transfer of rights).
Defendant’s initial lawful possession (lease/tolerance/permission).
Termination/expiration of right and service of demand.
Defendant’s refusal to vacate.
Prayer for:
- restitution of possession,
- payment of reasonable compensation/rentals for use and occupation,
- damages (if supported),
- attorney’s fees and costs.

For forcible entry:

Prior physical possession of plaintiff (or predecessor).
Defendant’s unlawful entry by the enumerated means.
Filing within the one-year period.

10) Procedure in ejectment: summary nature, but still rule-bound

Ejectment is intended to be speedier than ordinary civil actions, but outcomes still depend on:

clean documents,
proper demand and service,
correct cause of action,
and disciplined litigation.

Key features you should expect:

Court-directed timelines and limits (summary procedure framework).
Early determination of possession issues.
Possibility of preliminary conferences and submissions of affidavits/position papers depending on the court’s approach and applicable rules.

Even in a summary framework, technical failures (wrong dates, missing demand proof, wrong parties, wrong characterization) can cause dismissal.

11) Provisional remedies and execution: getting actual possession

A. Immediate enforcement is not automatic

Winning an ejectment case produces a judgment ordering the defendant to vacate and pay amounts due. Actual removal requires execution.

B. Execution pending appeal (a defining feature in ejectment)

Ejectment has a distinctive approach: judgments can be executed even if appealed, subject to the defendant meeting conditions set by rules (commonly involving periodic deposits/rentals and other requirements). If the defendant fails to comply, execution proceeds despite the appeal.

This is one reason ejectment is preferred when available: it can restore possession sooner than ordinary actions.

C. Writ of execution and sheriff enforcement

After judgment (or during appeal under allowed conditions), you move for a writ. The sheriff implements:

service of notice to vacate,
coordination for peaceful turnover,
removal of personal property if needed under proper procedure,
and turnover of premises to the prevailing party.

Law enforcement presence is typically for keeping the peace; the sheriff leads the implementation.

12) Damages and “rentals” (reasonable compensation for use)

A prevailing plaintiff may recover:

Rentals if there was a lease and rent is due;
or reasonable compensation for use and occupation (often computed as fair rental value) if there is no lease but the occupant stayed without right.

To strengthen recovery:

Present market comparables, assessor data, broker opinion, or prior lease terms.
Plead amounts and bases clearly.

Attorney’s fees are not automatic; they generally must be justified by stipulation, law, or equitable grounds and properly alleged.

13) Accion publiciana: when ejectment is no longer available

If the occupant has been unlawfully holding possession and the case is no longer within the ejectment time frame (often because the one-year period lapsed), the remedy is typically accion publiciana—a plenary action to recover the better right of possession.

This is usually filed in the Regional Trial Court and is slower than ejectment. It requires more comprehensive litigation and does not carry the same summary mechanisms.

14) Accion reivindicatoria: when you must litigate ownership

If your real problem is that:

your ownership is seriously contested,
your title is defective or clouded,
the occupant’s claim hinges on ownership issues that cannot be treated incidentally, then reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership) may be necessary. Possession is sought as a consequence of ownership.

This is heavier litigation, often involving:

title history,
validity of deeds,
succession issues,
encumbrances, and
possible annulment or reconveyance claims.

15) Foreclosure-related removals: writ of possession vs. ejectment

If you acquired the property through foreclosure, the available remedy depends on whether it was:

Extrajudicial foreclosure (common with real estate mortgages), or
Judicial foreclosure.

In many foreclosure settings, a writ of possession is available to place the purchaser in possession through a relatively streamlined process (subject to rules and possible third-party adverse claims). However:

If the occupant is a third party holding under a claim of right independent of the mortgagor, complications arise.
Some disputes still end up requiring ejectment or a plenary action depending on who is in possession and under what claim.

Because foreclosure timelines and redemption periods affect possession strategy, the acquisition mode matters.

16) Special populations and constraints: what can limit eviction

A. Tenants and rent laws

If occupants are tenants, consider:

rental law coverage thresholds,
grounds for termination,
notice requirements,
and whether the lease binds the buyer.

A buyer typically steps into the shoes of the lessor, but specific lease terms and registrations can change obligations.

B. Socialized housing / relocation frameworks

If the property falls under areas affected by urban development and housing laws and the occupants are qualified beneficiaries/informal settlers under government programs, eviction may trigger:

additional procedural safeguards,
coordination with local government,
and relocation requirements in certain contexts.

These issues can affect enforcement even if you have a favorable judgment, especially where public order and humanitarian considerations lead to administrative interventions.

17) What you can and cannot do while the case is pending

Unlawful actions to avoid

Lockouts and padlocking without court authority.
Cutting electricity/water to force departure.
Removing doors/roofing or “constructive eviction.”
Harassment, threats, public shaming, or physical coercion.
Seizing or disposing of occupants’ personal property.

Lawful protective actions

Secure your documents and evidence.
Document property condition (photos, inventory if access is lawful).
Communicate through counsel and written notices.
If threats or violence exist, seek appropriate protection through lawful channels (police blotter, protective measures), without using law enforcement as a substitute for a court order of eviction.

18) Evidence checklist for a buyer seeking ejectment

Ownership / right to possess

Deed of Absolute Sale / foreclosure sale certificate
Transfer Certificate of Title (or proof of pending transfer)
Tax declaration and tax receipts (supporting)
HOA clearance or community records (supporting)

Occupancy and relationship

Lease contract (if any), receipts, communications
Proof of tolerance/permission (messages, letters, witness affidavits)
Barangay records or incident reports (if relevant)

Demand and refusal

Demand letter (signed)
Proof of service and receipt (registry return card, courier POD, affidavit of service)
Subsequent communications showing refusal or noncompliance

Damages / compensation

Fair rental value evidence (listings, broker certification, comparable leases)
Repair estimates if damage occurred (with proof tying damage to occupants)

19) Barangay conciliation: when it applies and when it doesn’t (practical approach)

Many disputes between individuals in the same city/municipality can require barangay conciliation as a precondition before filing in court. However, its applicability depends on:

the parties’ residences,
the nature of the action,
and statutory exceptions.

In practice, litigants sometimes attempt barangay settlement first to:

create a record of demand and refusal,
explore a voluntary move-out timeline,
and reduce litigation cost.

But barangay proceedings should not be used to delay beyond critical filing periods for ejectment.

20) Typical defenses occupants raise—and how courts usually evaluate them (possession-focused)

Common defenses:

“You are not the owner / title is not yet transferred.”
“The deed is void / fraudulent / simulated.”
“I am a tenant / I paid rent / there is an agreement.”
“I am an heir / co-owner.”
“No proper demand was made.”
“The case is filed out of time / wrong remedy.”

Courts in ejectment typically ask:

Who had prior physical possession?
How did the defendant enter?
Was the defendant’s right to stay terminated?
Was there a valid demand (for unlawful detainer)?
Was the case filed within the proper period?

If the plaintiff cannot prove demand/refusal or timeliness, dismissal risk increases sharply.

21) Strategy notes for buyers: choosing the correct path

A. If occupants entered with permission/tolerance and now refuse to leave

Start with demand to vacate, then unlawful detainer within the proper period.

B. If they grabbed possession by force/stealth

File forcible entry within the one-year window, preserving proof of how and when entry occurred.

C. If you missed the ejectment window

File accion publiciana (better right to possess) in the appropriate court.

D. If the dispute is fundamentally about who owns the property

Prepare for reivindicatoria or related title actions; ejectment may not be sufficient.

E. If this is a foreclosure acquisition

Evaluate whether a writ of possession is available and appropriate; if third-party claims exist, anticipate additional litigation.

22) Practical outcomes: settlement, relocation timelines, and enforceable move-out plans

Many post-purchase occupancy conflicts end through negotiated agreements:

fixed move-out date with penalties,
cash-for-keys arrangements (carefully documented),
waiver/release and quitclaim,
acknowledgment of no tenancy (if true),
inventory of personal property left behind.

Any settlement should be written, signed, and structured to be enforceable, with clear consequences for breach.

23) Key takeaways

The Philippines treats eviction after purchase as a legal process problem, not a “new owner can remove people” problem.
Unlawful detainer is the primary tool when possession started lawfully but became illegal after termination and demand.
Demand to vacate and timeliness often decide the case.
If ejectment is unavailable due to timing or complexity, you shift to accion publiciana or reivindicatoria.
Foreclosure purchases may allow a writ of possession, but occupant identity and claim matter.
Avoid self-help eviction; it creates liability and can weaken your case.