Ejectment, Demolition, and Barangay/Katarungang Pambarangay Steps (Philippine Context)

This is a general legal-information article in the Philippine setting. Outcomes depend heavily on facts (especially timing, how possession was taken, and whether the builder acted in good or bad faith).

1) The Situation in One Sentence

When a person puts up a house on land covered by your Torrens title (TCT/CCT) without your right or consent, the law gives you tools to (a) recover possession (ejectment or other actions), and (b) address the structure (demolition/removal or, in some cases, indemnity/buy-sell arrangements under the Civil Code), usually after completing Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) conciliation when required.

2) First: Secure the Facts (Because the Remedy Depends on Them)

Before choosing a case, clarify these “decision points”:

A. Are they actually on your land (not just near it)?

Many disputes turn out to be boundary/encroachment issues.

Practical evidence checklist

Certified true copy of your TCT/CCT and the technical description (and, if available, lot plan).
Relocation survey by a geodetic engineer (pins, monuments, actual occupied area).
Photos/videos (dated), barangay blotter entries, witness affidavits.
Any letters, chats, or admissions by the occupant/builder.
If there’s ongoing construction: proof of dates (receipts, deliveries, progress photos).

B. How did they enter and occupy?

This determines whether you file forcible entry, unlawful detainer, or a different action.

C. When did they enter (and when did you discover it)?

The one-year rule is crucial for ejectment.

D. Are they claiming a right (lease, permission, “pinagamit,” sale, inheritance, adverse claim)?

This affects strategy and defenses.

E. Good faith vs bad faith (builder’s state of mind)

This can decide whether demolition is allowed or whether Civil Code Article 448-type consequences apply.

3) The Core Legal Concepts You’ll Keep Hearing

A. Torrens title is strong—but possession still must be recovered properly

A TCT/CCT is powerful evidence of ownership, but a title does not physically remove an occupier. You still generally need lawful process to recover possession and remove structures—especially once a dwelling is involved.

B. “Possession” has layers: physical possession vs ownership

Philippine remedies often depend on what you’re trying to recover:

Physical/Material possession (possession de facto / “possession in fact”) → handled by ejectment (forcible entry/unlawful detainer) under Rule 70.
Better right of possession (possession de jure) → handled by accion publiciana (ordinary civil action).
Ownership (title) plus possession → handled by accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership).

Even if you are the titled owner, your case might be dismissed if you choose the wrong remedy or miss the timing requirement.

4) The Civil Code “Builder on Another’s Land” Rules (Why Demolition Is Not Always Automatic)

When someone builds on land belonging to another, the Civil Code’s accession rules on buildings, plantings, sowings matter a lot—especially Articles 448–455 (commonly invoked).

A. Builder in good faith (classic Article 448 situation)

A builder is generally in good faith when they honestly believe they have the right to build (e.g., relying on a deed they think is valid, a boundary mistake, permission they reasonably believed existed, etc.).

Key consequence: If the builder is in good faith, the landowner typically cannot simply demand demolition as the first option. Instead, the landowner must choose between options that often boil down to:

Appropriate the improvement (keep the house) by paying indemnity, or
Compel the builder to buy the land (or pay for the portion), or
If the land is considerably more valuable than the improvement, the builder may instead pay reasonable rent (and other equitable adjustments), depending on the facts and court rulings.

Because these outcomes can be fact-intensive, cases involving claimed good faith sometimes end up better suited to an ordinary civil action, not just summary ejectment.

B. Builder in bad faith

Bad faith typically exists when the builder knows the land is not theirs (or has been warned/demanded to stop/vacate) yet proceeds anyway.

Common consequence: The landowner may demand removal/demolition at the builder’s expense, plus damages. The builder may also lose rights to indemnity.

C. Mixed bad faith or landowner bad faith

The Code contains rules for cases where:

the builder is in good faith but the landowner is in bad faith, or
both are in bad faith.

These scenarios can alter indemnity/damages outcomes and are heavily fact-driven.

Practical takeaway: If the occupant is a “true squatter” who built despite warnings and without any plausible right, demolition is usually much more attainable. If there is a plausible claim of right or boundary error, courts may treat it under Article 448-type principles, which can complicate immediate demolition.

5) Your Main Civil Remedies to Recover Possession

Remedy 1: Ejectment (Rule 70) — the fastest route to regain physical possession

Ejectment cases are summary in nature and filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) where the property is located.

There are two types:

A. Forcible Entry

Use this when the defendant took possession through:

force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

Timing: Must be filed within one (1) year from:

the date of actual entry; or
if entry was by stealth, from the date you discovered it.

Good for: sudden occupation, sneaky fencing, rushed construction, “biglaang pasok,” or entry without permission.

B. Unlawful Detainer

Use this when the defendant’s possession was originally lawful (by contract or tolerance), but became illegal when:

their right expired/was terminated, and
they refused to leave after demand.

Timing: Must be filed within one (1) year from the date of the last demand to vacate (or from termination of the right, depending on how the facts are pleaded).

Demand is critical: In unlawful detainer, a proper written demand to vacate is commonly treated as a necessary element.

Remedy 2: Accion Publiciana

If more than one year has passed (or the case doesn’t fit Rule 70), you may need accion publiciana—an ordinary civil action to recover the better right to possess.

Court: Often the RTC, but jurisdiction in real actions can depend on the property’s assessed value (statutory thresholds differ for Metro Manila vs outside). Venue is where the property is located.

Remedy 3: Accion Reivindicatoria

If ownership must be directly adjudicated (especially if there’s a serious competing ownership claim), you may file for recovery of ownership plus possession.

This is typically more complex and slower than ejectment, but sometimes necessary when the defendant raises title issues that cannot be cleanly handled as merely “possession.”

6) Where Does “Demolition” Fit In?

A. Demolition as part of a court process (most common in private disputes)

Demolition of a house on your land usually happens after a court ruling that you are entitled to possession and that the structure must be removed.

In practice, demolition may be implemented through:

a Writ of Execution (to restore possession), and
a special order / writ of demolition (to remove improvements/structures), implemented by the sheriff.

Courts generally require that demolition be clearly authorized in the dispositive portion of the judgment or in a subsequent specific order.

B. Demolition via administrative/building regulation routes (supplemental)

If the structure was erected:

without a building permit, or
in violation of zoning/building requirements, or
through misrepresentation,

you can report it to the Office of the Building Official (under the National Building Code framework). This can lead to stop-work orders, enforcement actions, and possible administrative demolition proceedings depending on local enforcement rules.

Important: Administrative enforcement is usually not a substitute for the civil action needed to settle private property rights—especially when someone is already occupying the structure as a dwelling.

C. Special caution: eviction/demolition involving informal settlers

If the occupants are treated as informal settlers and social legislation applies (commonly discussed under urban housing policies), demolition/eviction is often expected to observe humane safeguards (notice, coordination, proper timing, etc.). Even when you have a court order, execution involving homes is typically handled with added procedural care.

7) The Barangay/Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) Step: When It’s Required and How It Works

A. Why KP matters

In many community disputes, KP is a condition precedent—meaning the court can dismiss your case for being premature if you file without KP when KP applies.

You usually prove compliance via a Certificate to File Action (CFA) or similar certification from the Lupon/Pangkat after failed settlement.

B. When KP generally applies (typical rule of thumb)

KP commonly covers civil disputes between individuals who are within the barangay justice system’s coverage, especially when:

parties reside in the same city/municipality (subject to venue rules), and
the dispute is not among the statutory exceptions.

C. Common exceptions (when you may not need KP)

KP does not generally cover, among others:

cases where a party is the government or a public officer acting in official functions;
certain offenses with heavier penalties;
disputes needing immediate judicial intervention in a way recognized by law/rules;
disputes otherwise excluded by the KP provisions (including specific venue/party residency limitations).

Because exceptions can be technical, many practitioners treat KP compliance as the safer default unless clearly inapplicable.

D. KP step-by-step (how it typically proceeds)

Step 1: Filing of complaint at the barangay

You file a complaint with the Punong Barangay (or Lupon Secretary depending on local practice). The barangay issues a summons to the respondent.

Step 2: Mediation by the Punong Barangay

The Punong Barangay mediates within statutory periods (commonly described as up to 15 days).

Possible outcomes:

Amicable settlement (Kasunduan)
Failure of mediation → proceed to Pangkat

Step 3: Formation of the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo

If no settlement, a Pangkat is constituted.

Step 4: Conciliation by the Pangkat

Conciliation happens within statutory periods (often 15 days, sometimes extendible depending on the rules and parties’ agreement).

Possible outcomes:

Amicable settlement
Arbitration (only if parties agree to submit to arbitration)
Failure → certification to file action

Step 5: Issuance of Certificate to File Action (CFA)

If settlement fails, the barangay issues the CFA. This is what you attach to your court complaint (when KP is required).

Step 6: Effect of settlement

A barangay settlement can become enforceable and may carry the effect of a final agreement between parties. There is also a statutory window in which a settlement may be repudiated under the law’s rules.

8) How to Choose the Right Court Case (Decision Guide)

A. If the occupier entered within the last year (or you discovered stealth entry within the last year)

✅ Consider Forcible Entry.

B. If the occupier initially had permission (explicit or implied), but refused to leave after demand

✅ Consider Unlawful Detainer (and make sure your demand is properly documented).

C. If more than one year has passed and it’s basically a possession fight

✅ Consider Accion Publiciana.

D. If ownership must be squarely resolved (competing titles, serious ownership claim)

✅ Consider Accion Reivindicatoria (sometimes alongside other reliefs).

E. If the dispute is really a boundary encroachment

✅ Consider actions that squarely address boundaries/encroachment, supported by a relocation survey—sometimes coupled with possession claims.

9) What You Normally Ask For in Court (Typical Prayers/Reliefs)

Whether in ejectment or an ordinary civil action, claim sets often include:

Restitution of possession (turn over the land / vacate)
Removal/demolition of the house or improvements (when appropriate)
Reasonable compensation for use and occupation (often framed like rent/mesne profits)
Damages (actual, sometimes moral/exemplary depending on conduct)
Attorney’s fees and costs (where justified)
Injunction (to stop ongoing construction or prevent further acts, when justified)

10) Ejectment Procedure Highlights (Rule 70 Reality Check)

A. It’s summary—so evidence must be organized

Ejectment cases move faster than ordinary civil actions. Courts commonly resolve based on:

verified pleadings,
affidavits,
position papers, and
supporting documents.

B. Ownership may be discussed—but only provisionally

The MTC can consider title only to determine possession, and its ownership finding is generally not final for title purposes.

C. Execution can be immediate in practice

Ejectment judgments are known for speedier execution, and appeals may not automatically stop execution unless the requirements to stay execution are met (commonly involving a bond and periodic deposits of rent/compensation, depending on the situation).

11) Common Defenses You Should Expect (and Prepare Against)

“This is my land / I have rights here.” → Prepare title, survey, chain of documents, and show how entry occurred.
“Boundary is wrong; your title overlaps ours.” → Relocation survey, technical descriptions, and possibly escalation to a proper action if truly technical.
“I’m a builder in good faith.” → Show notice, demands, warnings, lack of right, or circumstances proving knowledge.
“You tolerated me / pinayagan mo ako.” → Clarify dates, communications, any revocation, and formal demand to vacate.
“Prescription / matagal na kami dito.” → Torrens-registered land is generally protected from acquisition by prescription, but long possession can still affect factual findings and equitable considerations—so document your assertions carefully.
“Wrong remedy / out of time.” → This is why the one-year rule and correct cause of action matter.

12) A Practical, Law-Aligned Sequence of Steps (From Discovery to Removal)

Step 1: Document and verify

Secure certified copies of title documents.
Get a relocation survey if boundaries are in doubt.
Photograph and date everything.

Step 2: Written demand

Demand to stop building (if ongoing).
Demand to vacate and remove improvements (or clarify your position under the Civil Code, depending on facts).
Serve with proof (personal service with acknowledgment, registered mail with return card, courier with tracking).

Step 3: KP/barangay filing (when required)

File complaint, attend mediation/conciliation, obtain settlement or CFA.

Step 4: File the correct court action

Forcible entry/unlawful detainer (Rule 70) if within the one-year window.
Otherwise accion publiciana / reivindicatoria as appropriate.

Step 5: Seek immediate protective relief if needed

If construction is ongoing and causing irreparable harm, consider injunction (subject to rules on KP and provisional remedies).

Step 6: Obtain judgment, then execution and demolition order

After a favorable judgment, move for writ of execution and, if authorized/needed, writ/order of demolition.

Step 7: Sheriff implementation

Coordinate on schedules, notices, security assistance, and proper handling of occupants’ belongings.

13) High-Risk Pitfalls (That Commonly Sink Cases)

Filing ejectment late (beyond the one-year period) and getting dismissed.
Skipping KP when required, leading to dismissal for lack of condition precedent.
Naming the wrong defendant (e.g., suing only the “builder” when the actual occupants are different).
Not proving how entry happened (for forcible entry) or not proving demand (for unlawful detainer).
No survey in boundary-type disputes, letting the case devolve into confusion.
Assuming title alone guarantees demolition even when builder good faith issues are present.
Self-help demolition without legal process, risking criminal/civil liability and escalation.

14) Bottom Line Principles

Choose the correct cause of action early—especially to preserve Rule 70’s one-year window.
KP compliance can be make-or-break when applicable.
Demolition is usually a consequence of a lawful judgment and writ, not a shortcut.
Builder good faith vs bad faith can radically change what the law allows you to demand regarding the house.
Evidence of boundaries, timing, and notice is what turns a titled owner into a winning plaintiff.