Overview
“Unlawful detainer” ( desahucio ) is a summary ejectment action governed by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. It lies when a possessor initially entered the property lawfully—by lease, tolerance, or any other contract—but continues to occupy it after the right is terminated or expires and fails to vacate upon demand.
When the possessor’s supposed right is based on a **contract of sale that one party later claims is void (whether for being simulated, absolutely void under Art. 1409, or voidable but annulled), the seller–owner often turns to unlawful detainer to regain physical possession (possession de facto). Below is a comprehensive guide to that situation under Philippine law, integrating statutes, procedural rules, and Supreme Court jurisprudence current to mid‑2025.
1. Governing Legal Framework
| Source | Key Provisions / Relevance |
|---|---|
| Civil Code of the Philippines | • Arts. 1390–1397 (voidable contracts) |
| • Art. 1409 (absolutely void contracts) | |
| • Arts. 431–432 (recovery of possession independent of title) | |
| Rule 70, Rules of Court | Defines unlawful detainer; prescribes jurisdiction, pleadings, periods, judgment, appeals, and execution. |
| Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act), as amended | Vests exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases in the Municipal Trial Courts (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) regardless of title questions, provided the sole issue is physical possession. |
| Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA 7160, ch. VII) | Requires lupon conciliation for disputes between residents of the same barangay before filing ejectment, unless covered by an exception. |
2. Elements of Unlawful Detainer
- Prior Lawful Possession by defendant—derived from tolerance, lease, deed of sale, or any agreement with plaintiff.
- Termination or Expiration of that right—e.g., rescission or annulment of a voidable sale, declaration of nullity of a void sale, cancellation of SPA, or a simple written demand to vacate.
- Withholding of Possession thereafter.
- One‑Year Filing Window counted from date of last demand to vacate (not from when the contract became void).
If the action is filed beyond one year, the proper remedy becomes accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
3. Why an Action Lies Even When the Sale Is Void
Independent Nature of Possession de facto – The MTC’s jurisdiction is not ousted by allegations of nullity of the sale; title issues are examined only to determine who has the better right of physical possession, pro hac vice.
Doctrine of Lessee by Tolerance – A buyer who stays after the sale is annulled is treated like a lessee or tenant at sufferance; his continued stay turns illegal upon demand.
Void Contract Conveys No Ownership – Under Art. 1409, a void sale produces no effect; ownership never transfers, but possession may still have been voluntarily given. When the transferee refuses to return, the summary remedy of unlawful detainer becomes available.
Policy of Speedy Justice – Ejectment actions are preferred because they prevent prolonged deprivation of real property through dilatory technicalities.
4. Leading Supreme Court Decisions
| Case (G.R. No.; Date) | Principle Relevant to Void Sale & Detainer |
|---|---|
| Spouses Abalos v. Heirs of Gomez (G.R. No. 158989, Sept 12 2007) | Even if deed of sale is annulled for fraud, possessor’s stay after annulment is by tolerance; action is unlawful detainer. |
| Heirs of Malate v. Gamboa (G.R. No. 214685, Mar 15 2017) | MTC may determine prima facie title only to resolve physical possession; nullity does not divest it of jurisdiction. |
| Sps. Cabanting v. Laigo (G.R. No. 170606, Aug 23 2012) | One‑year period is reckoned from last demand, not from contract’s voiding. |
| Vda. de Prieto v. Reyes (G.R. No. 128375, June 10 2003) | Contract void for lack of marital consent; possession after revocation is unlawful detainer. |
| Pajares v. Abad (G.R. No. 146364, June 3 2004) | Barangay conciliation is jurisdictional; absence is fatal even in detainer anchored on void sale. |
(Citation style adapted for readability; retrieve full texts via the Supreme Court E‑Library.)
5. Procedural Roadmap
Demand to Vacate
- Write a clear, dated demand (often notarized) giving defendant a reasonable period (commonly 15 days) to leave.
Barangay Conciliation (if parties reside in same city/municipality and not exempt)
- File a written complaint with the Punong Barangay.
- If mediation‑conciliation fails, secure a Certification to File Action (CFA).
Complaint in MTC
- Allegations must show: (a) prior lawful possession given under sale; (b) sale void/annulled; (c) demand date; (d) refusal to vacate; (e) filing within one year.
- Attach demand letter, contract copies, proof of ownership (TCT/OCT/Tax Dec).
- Pay filing fees based on assessed value or fair market value.
Defendant’s Pleadings
- Answer within 10 days; may raise defenses of ownership, prescription, lack of conciliation, or deny voidness. Counterclaims allowed.
Judgment on the Pleadings / Preliminary Conference
- Rule 70 encourages early resolution. Court may render judgment on the pleadings if issues are clear.
Decision & Execution
- MTC decides within 30 days from submission.
- Execution is immediate; appeal to RTC does not automatically stay execution unless appellant posts a supersedeas bond and deposits periodic rents or reasonable compensation for use and occupation.
6. Typical Defenses of the Possessor
| Defense | Viability |
|---|---|
| Sale Not Void | MTC can make provisional title findings; if buyer shows color of title and continuous possession, court may dismiss. |
| Action Beyond One Year | Fatal if last demand > 1 year before filing. |
| Lack of Prior Demand | Jurisdictional; complaint must allege and evidence demand. |
| Non‑compliance with Barangay Process | Ground for dismissal if mandatory and not excused. |
| Better Right of Possession | Defendant may invoke improvements, agrarian tenancy (places case under DAR), or homestead rights. |
7. Remedies After Judgment
- Appeal to the RTC within 15 days—treated as an ordinary appeal; parties may raise questions of fact and law.
- Petition for Review to the CA (Rule 42) if still aggrieved.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule 45) on pure questions of law.
Note: Execution pending appeal proceeds unless supersedeas bond and deposits are made—intended to discourage frivolous continuance of possession.
8. Interaction with Other Actions
| Other Action | When Appropriate | Effect on Detainer |
|---|---|---|
| Action for Declaration of Nullity / Annulment of Sale (RTC) | To settle ownership and validity of contract definitively. | May proceed independently; does not stay detainer unless consolidated and ordered by higher court. |
| Accion Publiciana | If dispossession already > 1 year but < 10 years. | Requires filing in RTC; longer, ordinary procedure. |
| Accion Reivindicatoria | To recover both ownership and possession irrespective of time. | Also RTC; possession regained only after full-blown trial. |
| Reconveyance / Cancellation of Title | When buyer managed to register title despite void sale. | Can be joined or brought separately; detainer still proper for physical possession. |
9. Prescription & Limitation Periods
| Cause of Action | Period |
|---|---|
| Unlawful Detainer | 1 year from last demand to vacate. |
| Annulment of Voidable Contract | 4 years from discovery of vice or fraud (Art. 1391). |
| Declaration of Absolute Nullity | Imprescriptible; void contracts never become valid by passage of time. |
10. Practical Tips for Litigants
For Sellers / Lessors / Owners
- Document Every Step: written demand, receipt, photographs.
- File Promptly: do not sit on your rights; delays push case to RTC.
- Compute Reasonable Rent: plead and prove fair rental value for damages.
For Buyers / Occupants
- Assert Color of Title Early: present tax receipts, improvements, or proof of payment.
- Check Barangay Compliance: dismissal on this ground is inexpensive.
- Prepare Supersedeas Bond if intending to appeal but remain in possession.
11. Key Take‑Aways
Nullity of Sale ≠ Bar to Unlawful Detainer – The summary action focuses on who is entitled to material possession now, not permanent ownership.
Jurisdiction Stays with the MTC – Even complex title issues are only collaterally reviewed; determination is provisional.
Demand‑to‑File Interval Controls the Clock – One‑year prescriptive period is counted from the last demand, not the sale’s execution or annulment.
Speed & Summary Nature – The Rules strongly favor prompt resolution and immediate execution to curb land grabbing and hold‑overs.
Parallel Suits Possible – A separate action to annul the sale or reconvey title may proceed without halting detainer.
Conclusion
In Philippine practice, an unlawful detainer suit is the most efficient weapon to regain possession when a buyer refuses to vacate after a void or annulled contract of sale. Mastery of the one‑year prescriptive period, mandatory barangay conciliation, and the provisional character of title determinations is crucial for both litigants and counsel. While the void contract question may later be threshed out in the RTC, the MTC’s summary action protects possession swiftly, balancing the scales between property owners and possessors who overstay their welcome.