1) What the “Certificate to File Action” is (and why it matters)

In disputes covered by Katarungang Pambarangay (barangay justice/conciliation), a party generally cannot go straight to court. The law requires prior barangay conciliation first, and the proof that this condition has been satisfied (or that it legally cannot proceed at the barangay level) is a barangay-issued certification—commonly referred to in practice as a “Certificate to File Action” (CFA).

In ejectment cases—i.e., forcible entry and unlawful detainer (Rule 70)—courts often require proof of compliance with barangay conciliation when the parties are individuals who reside in the same city/municipality and the dispute is not exempt. If barangay conciliation is required but not undertaken (or not properly shown), the case is vulnerable to dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with a condition precedent.

2) The core question: Does a CFA have an “expiration date”?

A. The practical answer

A CFA generally has no fixed “validity period” or “expiration date” stated as a blanket rule the way some permits do. Its main function is evidentiary and procedural: it shows that the dispute has passed through (or is exempt from) barangay conciliation such that filing in court is now permitted.

B. The legally controlling limit: prescription/limitations (not CFA “expiry”)

Even if the CFA does not “expire” on its face, your right to sue can still be lost by prescription (the deadline to file an action). In ejectment, prescription is especially strict:

Forcible Entry: must be filed within 1 year from actual entry/dispossession.
Unlawful Detainer: must be filed within 1 year from the last demand to vacate (or last demand to comply + vacate, depending on the factual basis).

So the “real” time constraint is usually the 1-year filing period under Rule 70, not an “expiry” of the CFA.

3) How barangay proceedings affect deadlines in ejectment

A. Filing a barangay complaint interrupts prescription—but only up to a point

When you file a complaint with the barangay under Katarungang Pambarangay, the prescriptive period is interrupted, and then resumes upon your receipt of the certification to file action. However, the interruption is capped: the stoppage of the running of prescription does not extend indefinitely; it is limited to a maximum interruption period (commonly treated in practice as up to 60 days under the barangay justice framework).

Meaning: You cannot “park” an ejectment dispute in the barangay for months and expect the 1-year Rule 70 deadline to pause the whole time. The law prevents that by limiting the interruption period.

B. Why this matters more in ejectment than in many other civil cases

Ejectment is designed to be summary and time-sensitive. The one-year period is jurisdictional in practice: filing beyond it risks dismissal because the action is no longer the proper Rule 70 remedy (and may have to be pursued as a different, slower action).

So while the CFA may not “expire,” waiting too long after receiving it (or waiting too long overall) may make the ejectment case time-barred.

4) The barangay process that leads to a CFA (typical timeline)

While details vary by barangay and by the parties’ cooperation, the framework generally looks like this:

Complaint filed with the Punong Barangay.
Mediation by the Punong Barangay (commonly within a short statutory window).
If not settled, constitution of the Pangkat (conciliation panel).
Conciliation proceedings before the Pangkat.
If conciliation fails (or if a party refuses to appear/participate), the barangay issues a certification that allows filing in court (the CFA or its functional equivalent).

Important: Courts pay attention not just to the existence of a certification, but whether it was issued by the proper authority and corresponds to the correct ground (failure of settlement, non-appearance, etc.).

5) Different barangay certifications people confuse with the CFA

In practice, parties and even pleadings use “CFA” loosely. But there are distinct documents/effects under Katarungang Pambarangay:

A. Certification/Certificate to File Action (non-settlement / failure of conciliation)

Issued when barangay efforts fail, allowing court filing.

B. Certification based on non-appearance

If a respondent repeatedly fails to appear despite notice, a certification may issue so the complainant can proceed to court. This is still, functionally, a “go file” certification—though the factual basis is different.

C. Settlement agreement (Kasunduan) and its enforcement timelines (not CFA validity)

If parties settle at the barangay:

The settlement typically becomes final after the period allowed for repudiation (repudiation must be timely and on specific grounds).
The settlement can be enforced/executed through barangay mechanisms within a limited window, and thereafter enforcement may require court assistance.

These “execution windows” are often mistaken as the “validity” of the CFA, but they are about enforcing settlements, not about the right to file after conciliation fails.

6) What courts actually look for in ejectment pleadings

A. If barangay conciliation is required

The ejectment complaint should generally:

Allege that the dispute was referred to Katarungang Pambarangay, and
Attach the proper barangay certification (or plead facts showing exemption).

If the defendant timely raises non-compliance, a case may be dismissed without prejudice (meaning you can refile—but only if prescription has not run).

B. If barangay conciliation is not required (exempt)

Your pleading should state the exemption facts. Common exemption categories (in general terms) include:

When one party is not an individual (e.g., certain juridical entities), depending on the case circumstances;
When parties do not reside in the same city/municipality (as required for KP coverage);
When urgent legal action is needed under recognized exceptions;
Other statutory or rule-based exemptions.

A mistaken assumption about exemption can be costly: you might be dismissed for lack of a condition precedent, and by the time you redo barangay conciliation, the ejectment 1-year period may have lapsed.

7) So what is the “validity period” in real-world terms?

Key idea

Think of the CFA as a “gateway document,” not a time-limited permit. The meaningful deadlines are:

Rule 70 one-year filing period, and
The rule that barangay filing interrupts prescription only up to a limited maximum, after which the clock effectively keeps running.

Practical consequence: A CFA may remain a true certification of what "already happened," but it may no longer be useful if the ejectment action is already time-barred.

8) Common scenarios and how the “validity” issue arises

Scenario 1: CFA obtained, complaint filed much later

Even if the CFA is genuine, the court may dismiss because the ejectment action was filed beyond the 1-year period.

Scenario 2: Case dismissed for defective CFA, then refiled

If the first filing is dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiff may refile—but must still beat the 1-year deadline, factoring in only the legally allowed interruption due to barangay proceedings.

Scenario 3: New demand letter after prior CFA

In unlawful detainer, a new demand can sometimes create a fresh factual trigger, but courts scrutinize whether it’s the same cause of action repackaged or a genuinely new basis. Relying on an old CFA without aligning it to the operative demand/event can create procedural vulnerabilities.

9) Practical computation example (illustrative)

Unlawful detainer example

Demand to vacate received: February 1, 2026
Deadline to file unlawful detainer: February 1, 2027 (one year)

Suppose:

Barangay complaint filed: March 15, 2026
Conciliation proceedings occur; CFA received: April 30, 2026

Effect:

Prescription is interrupted by barangay filing, but only up to the maximum interruption allowed (commonly treated as up to 60 days).
After you receive the CFA, the prescriptive period resumes.

Result:

You still must file in court on or before the Rule 70 deadline, adjusted only by the allowable interruption period. Delaying until late 2027 because “the CFA is still valid” would be fatal.

10) Bottom-line rules to remember

No universal “CFA expires in X months” rule governs all ejectment cases.
The controlling constraint is the Rule 70 one-year period (from dispossession for forcible entry, or from last demand for unlawful detainer).
Barangay filing interrupts prescription but only for a limited maximum period, and the clock resumes upon receipt of the certification.
A CFA is about procedural readiness to file, not a guarantee that the claim is still timely.
If the dispute is KP-covered, failing to secure and properly present the correct certification can lead to dismissal—and prescription may run out while correcting the defect.

This article is for general legal information in the Philippine context and is not legal advice.