Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, ejectment cases serve as a vital mechanism for resolving disputes over physical possession of real property. These cases, primarily encompassing forcible entry and unlawful detainer, are designed to provide swift relief to rightful possessors without delving into questions of ownership. Governed by Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, ejectment actions are expedited to prevent prolonged deprivation of possession. A critical aspect of these proceedings is the prescription period, which dictates the timeframe within which such actions must be initiated. Failure to file within this period bars the case from proceeding under the summary framework, potentially relegating it to more protracted ordinary civil actions. This article comprehensively examines the prescription period for ejectment cases, its legal foundations, computation, exceptions, jurisprudential interpretations, and practical implications.

Legal Framework Governing Ejectment Cases

Ejectment cases in the Philippines are rooted in the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386), particularly Articles 428 and 539, which affirm the right of a property owner or lawful possessor to recover possession through legal means. However, the procedural aspects are detailed in the Revised Rules of Court.

Rule 70: This rule specifically addresses actions for forcible entry (detentacion) and unlawful detainer (desahucio). It mandates that these cases be filed before the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, depending on the location.
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure: Promulgated by the Supreme Court through A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (effective October 27, 2009, with subsequent amendments), these rules apply to ejectment cases to ensure speedy disposition. The summary nature prohibits certain pleadings, limits motions, and requires resolution within specified timelines, such as a decision within 30 days after submission.

The prescription period is not a statute of limitations in the traditional sense (which extinguishes the right) but a jurisdictional requirement for the action to qualify as an ejectment case under summary procedure. If the period lapses, the dispute transforms into one involving recovery of possession de jure, such as accion publiciana (for possession based on better right) or accion reivindicatoria (for ownership), which fall under regular procedure and are cognizable by Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) if the property value exceeds certain thresholds.

Types of Ejectment Cases and Their Prescription Periods

Ejectment cases are bifurcated into two main types, each with a distinct prescription period tied to the nature of the dispossession.

Forcible Entry

Forcible entry occurs when a person is deprived of possession through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth (FISTS). The essence is the unlawful and sudden deprivation of physical possession.

Prescription Period: The action must be filed within one (1) year from the date of actual dispossession. If the entry was through stealth or strategy, the period commences from the date of discovery of such entry.
Rationale: This short period underscores the need for immediate restoration of possession to maintain public order and prevent self-help remedies that could escalate into violence.
Computation: The one-year period is computed from the date of the forcible act. For instance, if dispossession occurred on January 1, 2025, the action must be filed by January 1, 2026. The counting follows the general rules under Article 13 of the Civil Code, excluding the first day and including the last, unless it falls on a non-working day.

Unlawful Detainer

Unlawful detainer arises when possession, initially lawful (e.g., through lease or tolerance), becomes unlawful due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess, coupled with refusal to vacate despite demand.

Prescription Period: The action must be filed within one (1) year from the date the possession became unlawful. This is typically measured from the date of the last demand to vacate and pay (if applicable). In cases of lease, demand is jurisdictional and must comply with the form and content requirements under the law.
Rationale: The period ensures that disputes over de facto possession are resolved expeditiously, preventing squatters or holdover tenants from indefinitely occupying property.
Computation: The period starts from the final demand. If multiple demands are made, the last one controls. For example, if a lease expires on December 31, 2024, and a demand is served on January 15, 2025, the one-year period runs from January 15, 2025. Jurisprudence clarifies that the demand must be unequivocal and in writing for residential properties under the Rent Control Law (Republic Act No. 9653, as extended).

In both types, the one-year rule is enshrined in Section 1, Rule 70: "All actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer... shall be commenced within one year..."

Jurisdictional Nature of the Prescription Period

The prescription period is jurisdictional, meaning courts cannot entertain ejectment cases beyond this timeframe under summary procedure. If a complaint is filed after the period, the court must dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, without prejudice to refiling as an ordinary action.

Distinction from Ordinary Prescription: Unlike the 10-year prescription for real actions under Article 1141 of the Civil Code, the one-year period here does not extinguish the right but merely changes the remedy's nature and forum.
Burden of Proof: The plaintiff bears the burden to allege and prove compliance with the one-year period. Failure to do so results in dismissal, as held in Delos Reyes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 115040, March 15, 1996).

Computation and Tolling of the Period

General Rules on Computation

Calendar Year: The period is a full 365 or 366 days (leap year), computed under the Gregorian calendar.
Interruption: Filing of the complaint tolls the period, but prior administrative remedies (e.g., barangay conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, Republic Act No. 7160) do not extend it unless expressly provided.
Holidays and Extensions: If the last day falls on a weekend or holiday, it extends to the next working day per Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.

Tolling and Exceptions

While the period is generally strict, certain circumstances may toll or suspend it:

Discovery Rule for Stealth: In forcible entry via stealth, the period starts upon actual knowledge, not the act itself (Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142276, August 14, 2002).
Continuing Violation: In unlawful detainer, if withholding is continuous, the period renews with each demand, but jurisprudence limits this to prevent abuse (Pascual v. Coronel, G.R. No. 159471, July 31, 2006).
Force Majeure: Extraordinary events like natural disasters may equitably toll the period, though rarely applied in ejectment due to its summary nature.
Minority or Incapacity: Under Article 1108 of the Civil Code, prescription does not run against minors or incapacitated persons, but this is sparingly invoked in possessory actions.
Estoppel: If the defendant induces delay, estoppel may prevent invocation of prescription (Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97753, August 10, 1992).

Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic led to Supreme Court issuances (e.g., A.M. No. 20-8-09-SC) suspending prescription periods during community quarantines, which could retroactively apply to pending cases.

Jurisprudential Developments

Philippine Supreme Court decisions have refined the application of the prescription period:

One-Year Rule as Jurisdictional: In Spouses Labayo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119437, July 31, 1996), the Court emphasized that exceeding the period divests MTCs of jurisdiction, requiring RTC adjudication.
Demand as Starting Point: Zacarias v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 115827, October 15, 2003) clarified that in toleration cases (e.g., possession by permission), the period starts from demand, not revocation of permission.
Accrual in Succession Cases: When possession is withheld by heirs, the period runs from demand by co-heirs (Nacua v. Nacua, G.R. No. 133000, August 9, 2000).
Conversion to Ordinary Action: If prescription is raised and sustained, the case may be amended or refiled as accion publiciana (Ross Rica Sales Center, Inc. v. Spouses Ong, G.R. No. 132197, August 16, 2005).
Barangay Conciliation: Failure to undergo mandatory conciliation does not toll prescription but renders the complaint dismissible (Morata v. Go, G.R. No. L-62339, October 27, 1983).

These rulings underscore the Court's policy of strict adherence to promote efficient justice.

Practical Implications and Remedies

Consequences of Prescription

Dismissal: The case is dismissed without prejudice, allowing refiling under regular rules, but this delays resolution and increases costs.
Forum Shopping: Plaintiffs must avoid simultaneous filings to evade sanctions under Rule 7, Section 5.
Defenses: Defendants often raise prescription via affirmative defense in their answer, as motions to dismiss are prohibited in summary procedure.

Strategic Considerations

Plaintiffs: Ensure timely demand and filing; document dates meticulously.
Defendants: Verify computation; challenge jurisdiction early.
Appeals: Decisions in ejectment are appealable to RTCs, then CA via petition for review, with prescription issues reviewable on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

In agrarian cases under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Republic Act No. 6657), ejectment may intersect with DAR jurisdiction, but the one-year rule still applies unless ousted by special laws.

Conclusion

The prescription period for ejectment cases under summary procedure in the Philippines is a cornerstone of possessory remedies, balancing urgency with due process. Limited to one year from dispossession or demand, it ensures rapid restoration while jurisdictional in nature. Understanding its nuances—through legal provisions, computation rules, exceptions, and jurisprudence—is essential for practitioners and litigants. As the legal landscape evolves, adherence to this period remains pivotal in upholding property rights and judicial efficiency.