Ejectment cases in the Philippines are summary civil actions designed to quickly restore physical/material possession (possession de facto) of real property. Because they are meant to be fast and streamlined, the Rules impose pleading requirements that are stricter (and more frequently scrutinized) than in ordinary civil actions—one of the most important being the verified complaint.

This article explains ejectment in Philippine practice with special focus on verification (and its frequent companion requirement, the certification against forum shopping), including who must sign, how it must be executed, what defects are fatal, what defects are curable, and how to avoid technical dismissals.

1) What “ejectment” means in Philippine civil procedure

A. Two ejectment actions under Rule 70

Under Philippine Rules of Court, ejectment commonly refers to either:

Forcible Entry (FE) – the defendant took possession of the property by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
Unlawful Detainer (UD) – the defendant’s possession was initially lawful (e.g., by lease, tolerance, permission), but later became illegal because the right to possess ended and the defendant refused to vacate.

Key point: Ejectment is about possession, not ownership. Ownership issues may be touched only to resolve possession, and any ownership ruling is generally provisional for that purpose.

B. Why it matters which one you file

Forcible entry: The 1-year period is generally counted from actual entry; if by stealth, it is often counted from discovery of the entry.
Unlawful detainer: The 1-year period is generally counted from the last demand to vacate (or last demand to comply and vacate), because the possession becomes unlawful by the refusal after demand.

Choosing FE vs UD affects:

what facts must be pleaded;
what documents are critical (e.g., demand letters);
whether the case is timely filed.

2) Ejectment vs other property actions (don’t mix them up)

When the issue is possession or ownership beyond the scope of summary ejectment, the proper action may be:

Accion Publiciana – recovery of the right to possess (possession de jure) when dispossession has lasted more than 1 year, typically filed in the proper RTC depending on jurisdictional thresholds.
Accion Reivindicatoria – recovery of ownership (and usually possession as a consequence), also generally in the RTC.

Rule of thumb: If the goal is physical possession and the case fits the 1-year window → ejectment. If not → likely accion publiciana/reivindicatoria.

3) Court, venue, and procedure in ejectment

A. Jurisdiction

Ejectment cases are generally within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) regardless of the property’s value, because the action is about possession, not title.

B. Venue

Filed in the court of the municipality/city where the property (or any part of it) is located.

C. Summary nature

Ejectment is governed by Rule 70 and typically proceeds under summary procedure concepts: quicker timelines, limited pleadings, and reliance on affidavits/documentary evidence.

4) The “verified complaint” requirement in ejectment

A. What “verification” is (and what it is not)

A verification is a sworn statement by the party (or authorized representative) that:

the allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on:
- personal knowledge, or
- authentic records.

Verification is not the same as notarization of signatures. Verification is a sworn assurance about truthfulness of allegations; it is usually attached as a separate section or page and signed under oath.

B. Why ejectment complaints must be verified

Ejectment is designed to be swift. A verified complaint helps:

discourage false claims about possession;
justify fast-track handling;
allow the court to rely on pleadings supported by oath at the outset.

C. What should be verified in an ejectment complaint

Practically, the complaint should clearly allege (and the verification supports) the core facts, such as:

Forcible Entry (FE):

plaintiff had prior physical possession;
defendant entered through force/intimidation/threat/strategy/stealth;
date of entry (or date of discovery if stealth is relied upon);
continued deprivation of possession.

Unlawful Detainer (UD):

defendant’s initial lawful possession (lease, permission, tolerance);
termination/expiration of right to possess;
demand to vacate (or demand to comply + vacate) and defendant’s refusal;
continued withholding of possession.

5) Verification vs Certification Against Forum Shopping (CAFSS)

Almost every ejectment complaint must include both:

Verification – truthfulness of allegations (personal knowledge/authentic records).
Certification Against Forum Shopping – declaration that the plaintiff:
- has not filed any other action involving the same issues in another tribunal;
- will report if a similar action is filed or is pending.

They are separate requirements serving different purposes. Verification focuses on factual truth; CAFSS focuses on preventing multiple suits.

6) Who must sign the verification in an ejectment case

A. General rule: the party signs

The verification is generally signed by the plaintiff (or plaintiffs). If there are multiple plaintiffs, practice varies, but safer drafting is:

all plaintiffs sign, or
one signs with clear authority to represent the others (and that authority should be demonstrable).

B. If the plaintiff is a corporation/association/juridical entity

The verification and CAFSS must be signed by a duly authorized officer/representative (e.g., President, Corporate Secretary, authorized signatory), and it is best practice to attach proof of authority such as:

board resolution;
secretary’s certificate;
special authorization.

C. If signing through an agent/attorney-in-fact

An attorney-in-fact may sign if authorized by a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) or equivalent authority. Courts often scrutinize whether the signatory truly has authority to swear on the principal’s behalf.

D. Counsel generally should not sign the verification for the client

As a rule in Philippine practice, verification and CAFSS should be executed by the party, not by counsel, except in narrowly accepted circumstances (and even then, it invites challenge). For ejectment (a technical and summary action), relying on exceptions is risky.

7) Proper form and wording of a verification (Philippine style)

A. Common acceptable verification wording

A typical form is:

“I/we have read the foregoing Complaint and attest that the allegations therein are true and correct based on my/our personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records.”

Key drafting points:

include “personal knowledge and/or authentic records” (mirrors the rule’s standard);
avoid vague attestations like “to the best of my knowledge” without grounding;
ensure it is signed under oath before a notary (jurat).

B. Verification requires a jurat (not an acknowledgment)

Jurat: the notary certifies the affiant swore to the truth of the contents.
Acknowledgment: the notary certifies the signer acknowledged signing the document.

Verification must be under jurat because it is a sworn statement.

8) Notarization requirements and practical pitfalls

Common reasons verifications get attacked:

No competent evidence of identity presented to the notary.
Notary details incomplete (missing commission info, PTR, IBP, roll number, etc., depending on the notarization form used).
Wrong notarial act used (acknowledgment instead of jurat).
Affiant did not personally appear before the notary (a serious defect).
Blanks left in the verification or mismatched names/IDs.

Because ejectment is summary, defendants often file motions to dismiss or motions to strike based on these technical defects, hoping to delay or defeat the case early.

9) Defective verification: what happens?

A. Effects depend on the defect’s nature

In Philippine procedure, courts distinguish between:

absence of verification, and
defective verification (present but imperfect).

In many civil actions, defective verification is often treated as a formal defect that may be cured. But in ejectment, parties should expect stricter scrutiny because Rule 70 specifically requires a verified complaint and because of the action’s summary character.

B. Curability and “substantial compliance”

Courts may allow:

submission of a corrected verification;
amendment of the complaint attaching a proper verification.

However, relying on curative leniency is risky in a time-sensitive case, especially when a refiling might run into the 1-year bar.

C. Certification against forum shopping is treated more strictly

As a general procedural reality:

Defects in the certification against forum shopping are more likely to be treated as serious, and in some situations may be grounds for dismissal, especially if the certification is missing or signed by an unauthorized person.

Best practice: treat the verification + CAFSS package as a “no-defect” zone.

10) Executing verification if the plaintiff is abroad

If the plaintiff is outside the Philippines, common approaches include:

signing before a Philippine Embassy/Consulate (consular notarization), or
signing before a local notary abroad with the document properly authenticated in a manner acceptable for use in Philippine courts (commonly through apostille where applicable).

The key is that the verification remains a valid sworn statement and is acceptable as a notarized document for Philippine court filing.

11) What must be alleged and supported (documents that “match” the verification)

Verification does not replace evidence, but it should align with what will be proven. Ejectment cases often succeed or fail on documents and dates. Typical attachments include:

For Forcible Entry

photos, incident reports, barangay blotter entries (if any);
affidavits of witnesses on prior possession and unlawful entry;
documents showing plaintiff’s exercise of possession (utility bills, improvements, caretaker statements, tax declarations—though tax declarations prove claim of ownership more than possession, they can still help contextualize).

For Unlawful Detainer

lease contract or proof of permission/tolerance;
proof of rental payments or prior arrangements;
written demand to vacate and proof of service/receipt (registered mail receipts, personal service acknowledgment, etc.);
computation of arrears/damages (if claimed).

A verified complaint that is vague on dates—especially the critical “1-year” timing—invites dismissal.

12) Interaction with barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Many civil disputes between residents of the same city/municipality require barangay conciliation before court action, subject to statutory exceptions. In practice, litigants often debate whether a particular ejectment case falls under an exception (for example, where immediate filing is needed to prevent injustice or because of strict time bars).

Because ejectment has a strict one-year framing and is meant to be summary, parties frequently argue it should proceed without being derailed by pre-litigation steps. Still, whether conciliation is required can become a preliminary battleground in some local fact patterns.

The safest approach is to evaluate early:

where the parties reside;
whether the dispute fits the barangay coverage and exceptions;
and whether compliance (or proof of exemption) should be pleaded/attached to avoid procedural dismissal.

13) Timeline highlights (why verification mistakes can be costly)

Ejectment cases move fast compared to ordinary civil cases:

short periods to answer;
early preliminary conference;
heavy reliance on affidavits and position papers;
judgments can be executed quickly, and execution pending appeal has special rules (including deposits/supersedeas bond mechanisms in many scenarios).

A technical dismissal due to verification/CAFSS problems may force refiling—potentially fatal if it pushes the case beyond the actionable period or undermines the chosen cause (FE vs UD).

14) Practical drafting checklist (verification-focused)

Before filing an ejectment complaint:

Confirm correct action: forcible entry vs unlawful detainer.
Identify the critical date for the 1-year period and plead it clearly.
Ensure the complaint is verified:
- correct wording (personal knowledge/authentic records);
- signed by the proper party/authorized representative;
- executed under jurat (sworn) with proper notarization.
Attach a proper Certification Against Forum Shopping:
- signed by the party (or duly authorized corporate officer);
- attach proof of authority for juridical entities.
Attach key documents (especially demand to vacate for UD).
Avoid “tolerance” allegations unless they match the real story; tolerance is often litigated and can change the nature of the action.

15) Sample templates (short forms)

A. Verification (individual)

VERIFICATION I, ______________________, of legal age, [civil status], and residing at ______________________, after having been duly sworn, depose and state:

I have read the foregoing Complaint.
The allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of __________ 20__ in _____________, Philippines. (Signature)

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of __________ 20__ in _____________, affiant exhibiting to me competent evidence of identity ______________________. (Notary Public)

B. Certification Against Forum Shopping (individual)

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING I, ______________________, after having been duly sworn, certify that:

I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or agency; to the best of my knowledge, no such action is pending.
If I should learn that a similar action has been filed or is pending, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days to this Honorable Court.

(Signature)

Affiant (Jurat)

(For corporations: adapt and attach proof of authority.)

Conclusion

In Philippine ejectment litigation, verification is not a mere formality—it is a gatekeeping requirement that can determine whether the case proceeds quickly (as intended) or gets derailed by technical challenges. The safest practice is to treat the verified complaint + proper certification against forum shopping + proof of signatory authority + correct notarization as essential “first-line merits,” because ejectment cases often turn on speed, dates, and procedural cleanliness just as much as on the underlying possessory facts.