This is general legal information in Philippine context, not personalized legal advice. Outcomes depend heavily on documents, family arrangements, and the exact facts.

A common Philippine scenario is a relative (sibling, cousin, in-law, adult child, etc.) who was allowed to stay “for now,” without rent, and later refuses to leave. Legally, that setup is usually possession by tolerance: they occupy because the owner (or lawful possessor) permitted it. Once permission is withdrawn, continued stay becomes unlawful, and the usual remedy is ejectment (unlawful detainer) under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court—not self-help.

Below is a practical, legally grounded guide: what to check first, which case to file, the steps, timelines you should expect in concept, and pitfalls that can wreck an otherwise straightforward eviction.

1) Start with the most important question: Who has the right to possess the house?

You can only evict if you have the better right to physical possession (or represent the owners).

A. If the property is solely yours

You generally have standing to terminate tolerance and seek ejectment.

B. If the property is co-owned (siblings inherited it, spouses, etc.)

A relative might claim you cannot evict because you’re “not the only owner.” In Philippine practice, a co-owner can usually act to protect the property, but disputes among co-owners can complicate ejectment. If the occupant is also a co-owner/heir with a claim of ownership, courts may treat the issue as beyond simple ejectment and push it toward actions that resolve possession/ownership more fully.

C. If you are not the titled owner but you lawfully possess (e.g., spouse, authorized representative)

You may still have standing if you can prove lawful possession or authority (SPA/authorization).

D. If the occupant claims a legal right to stay

Check for documents like:

A lease (even informal)
A right of usufruct, right of habitation, or similar arrangement
Donation with conditions
Proof that the house is part of an estate under settlement (where rights may be contested)
A claim that the occupant is not merely tolerated but has a contractual or property right

If the occupant’s right is real and documented, the approach changes.

2) Understand the correct remedy: you usually can’t just “kick them out”

The “no self-help eviction” rule (practical reality)

Even if you own the house, forcing someone out without a court process is risky and often counterproductive. Actions that commonly backfire include:

Changing locks while they’re out
Cutting utilities to force them to leave
Removing their belongings without authority
Threats, harassment, or public shaming

These can trigger criminal complaints (e.g., coercion), civil damages, and—most importantly—give the occupant sympathy and leverage in court.

3) Choose the correct case: Unlawful Detainer vs. Forcible Entry vs. Accion Publiciana/Reivindicatoria

Philippine law divides “recover possession” cases by how the person entered and how long they’ve been unlawfully there.

A. Unlawful Detainer (Ejectment, Rule 70) — the usual case for relatives

Use this when:

The relative initially had permission to stay (tolerance), or had a right that expired/was terminated, and
They refuse to leave after demand.

Key idea: they were lawful at first, then became unlawful when you withdrew permission.

B. Forcible Entry (Ejectment, Rule 70)

Use this when the occupant took possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth (FISTS). This is less common for relatives who were allowed in, but it happens.

C. Accion Publiciana (recovery of the right to possess) / Accion Reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership)

These are generally used when:

The case is beyond the summary nature of ejectment, or
You’re outside ejectment’s timing rules, or
Ownership issues are deeply entangled (though courts can touch ownership in ejectment only to decide possession “provisionally”).

Practical note: Many family house disputes start as unlawful detainer because it is the fastest possession remedy when properly handled.

4) The most common failure point: the required demand to vacate

In unlawful detainer, a written demand is typically essential because your theory is: “You were allowed; I withdrew permission; you must leave.”

What the demand should do

Clearly state that permission is revoked and they must vacate.
Give a reasonable period to leave (commonly days, but what’s “reasonable” depends on circumstances).
Be addressed to the occupant(s) by name (and “all persons claiming rights under them” if applicable).
Be served in a way you can prove (personal service with acknowledgment; barangay service; registered mail/courier with proof; witness).

Why it matters

Without a solid demand (and proof of receipt/service), you can lose on technical grounds or be delayed by dismissal/refiling.

5) Before court: Barangay conciliation (Lupon Tagapamayapa) is often mandatory

For many disputes between people residing in the same city/municipality, Philippine procedure requires filing first with the barangay under the Katarungang Pambarangay system, unless an exception applies.

What you need from the barangay

If settlement fails, you obtain a Certificate to File Action (or equivalent certification). Courts commonly require this when the law applies.

Exceptions (high level)

Certain cases (e.g., parties in different cities/municipalities, urgent legal action, specific exceptions under the statute) may bypass barangay. But for many “relative won’t leave my house” conflicts, barangay is a required first step.

6) Filing the case: where and what you file

A. Where to file

Ejectment cases (forcible entry/unlawful detainer) are filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) where the property is located.

B. What you typically allege (unlawful detainer by tolerance)

You are the owner/lawful possessor.
You allowed the defendant to occupy temporarily (tolerance).
You made a demand to vacate.
Defendant refused, so possession is now unlawful.
You seek restitution of possession plus damages (e.g., reasonable compensation for use, utilities, attorney’s fees where appropriate).

C. Evidence that usually matters most

Proof of your right/authority: title, tax declaration, deed, SPA, etc.
Proof of tolerance: messages, witnesses, admissions, prior arrangements.
Proof of demand: letter + proof of service.
Proof of occupancy: photos, bills, barangay blotter/records.
If claiming compensation: fair rental value data, receipts of expenses.

7) What happens in court (ejectment is “summary,” but still procedural)

Ejectment is designed to be faster than ordinary civil cases, but family disputes can still drag if poorly documented.

Common stages:

Filing of complaint
Service of summons
Answer by defendant
Pre-trial / preliminary conference (court-directed)
Submission of affidavits/position papers (depending on how the court handles summary procedure)
Decision
Execution (enforcement)

The win is not the paper judgment—it’s execution

Even if you win, the occupant may not leave voluntarily. You typically need:

A writ of execution
Enforcement by the sheriff (with coordination and, if needed, police assistance)

8) Can you recover “rent” or compensation if they stayed rent-free?

Often, yes—at least from the point their stay became wrongful (after demand), you may claim reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property, plus certain damages if justified.

However:

Courts may scrutinize fairness, especially in family situations.
You’ll need support for the amount (e.g., comparable rentals).

9) Special family situations that change everything

A. If the occupant is your spouse

If the dispute involves marital property, family home rights, or separation issues, eviction intersects with family law and may require a different approach (and forum), especially if there are protection orders or pending cases.

B. If the occupant is your minor child

A parent’s obligations and the child’s welfare can complicate a simple “leave now” demand. Courts are cautious when minors are involved.

C. If the house is an inherited family home and the estate is unsettled

Heirs often claim possessory rights. Courts may treat ejectment as improper if it becomes a proxy fight over inheritance shares or ownership, though ejectment can still proceed in some scenarios to address physical possession.

D. If the occupant claims they spent for construction/repairs

They may raise defenses like reimbursement, retention rights (in certain contexts), or equitable claims. These don’t automatically defeat ejectment, but they can complicate settlement and damages.

10) Defenses relatives commonly raise—and how they’re handled

“I’m family; you can’t evict me.” Family status alone doesn’t create a legal right to occupy property indefinitely.
“There’s no rent, so you can’t file unlawful detainer.” Unlawful detainer can be based on tolerance, not only on rent.
“I’m an heir/co-owner.” If credible, it may complicate or redirect the case. Courts may still decide possession issues narrowly, but ownership disputes can push the matter into other actions.
“You never demanded that I leave.” This is why demand and proof of service are critical.
“You agreed I could stay for life / until X.” If they can prove a binding agreement/right (especially written), you may need a different legal strategy.

11) A practical step-by-step roadmap

Step 1: Confirm your legal standing

Gather:

Title or deed / tax declaration
Authority documents (if not titled owner)
Proof of who lives there and since when

Step 2: Document the “tolerance” history

Collect:

Messages, emails, chat logs
Witness statements (neighbors, household members)
Any prior written acknowledgments

Step 3: Send a written demand to vacate

Serve it with proof. Keep it calm and factual.

Step 4: File at the barangay (if required)

Attempt conciliation. Obtain certification if no settlement.

Step 5: File unlawful detainer in the proper MTC

Attach key documents and comply with local procedural requirements.

Step 6: Prepare for defense tactics and delays

Have originals, witnesses, and consistent narrative.

Step 7: After judgment, pursue execution

Coordinate properly; avoid confrontations.

12) Common mistakes that cause dismissal or years of delay

No valid demand to vacate, or no proof it was received
Filing the wrong case (e.g., ownership-focused allegations that undermine ejectment’s summary nature)
Skipping barangay conciliation when required
Weak proof of your right to possess (especially in inherited/co-owned properties)
Mixing personal conflict tactics with legal process (harassment, utility cut-offs, public threats)

13) A simple demand-to-vacate template (customize carefully)

DEMAND TO VACATE

Date: ________

To: [Name of Occupant], and all persons claiming rights under them Address: [Full address of the house]

I am the [owner/lawful possessor/authorized representative] of the property located at [address]. You have been allowed to stay in the property by my tolerance/permission.

Please be informed that I am withdrawing my permission for you to occupy the property. I hereby demand that you vacate and peacefully surrender possession of the premises to me on or before [deadline date].

Should you fail to comply, I will be constrained to pursue the appropriate legal action to recover possession, including an ejectment case, and to claim reasonable compensation/damages and costs as may be allowed by law.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Signature] [Contact details]

Proof of service: Received by: __________ Date/Time: ________ Signature: ________ (or affidavit of service / registered mail receipt, etc.)

14) The “bottom line” in Philippine practice

For a relative living rent-free, the cleanest legal theory is usually:

They are in possession by tolerance → you revoke tolerance through a proper demand → if they refuse, file unlawful detainer (after barangay conciliation when required) → pursue execution if you win.

That approach aligns with how Philippine courts treat permission-based occupancy: the case is about physical possession, not about family status or emotions, and it uses the correct summary remedy when the facts fit.