0% found this document useful (0 votes)
265 views2 pages

CP Rule-70

This document summarizes the key differences between unlawful detainer (UD) and forcible entry (FE) cases under Rule 70 in the Philippines. For UD, prior possession does not need to be proven, while for FE prior possession must be shown. Both can address ownership issues incidentally for purposes of deciding possession. Demand is a jurisdictional requirement for UD cases but not required in some exceptions. The prescriptive period is one year from actual entry for FE and from last demand for UD. Courts in UD and FE cases can only award back rent, fees and possession, not damages. Appeals require a supersedeas bond and continued rental payments to stay execution.

Uploaded by

Joan Christine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
265 views2 pages

CP Rule-70

This document summarizes the key differences between unlawful detainer (UD) and forcible entry (FE) cases under Rule 70 in the Philippines. For UD, prior possession does not need to be proven, while for FE prior possession must be shown. Both can address ownership issues incidentally for purposes of deciding possession. Demand is a jurisdictional requirement for UD cases but not required in some exceptions. The prescriptive period is one year from actual entry for FE and from last demand for UD. Courts in UD and FE cases can only award back rent, fees and possession, not damages. Appeals require a supersedeas bond and continued rental payments to stay execution.

Uploaded by

Joan Christine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Rule 70 UNLAWFUL DETAINER (UD) & FORCIBLE ENTRY (FE)

Q:Forcible entry how committed?


A:when a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth,
Q:unlawful detainer how committed?
A:when a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land
or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or
assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person.
Q: what is the Principal issue?
A: mere physical possession
Q:can the first level courts treat an issue of ownership
A:yes, in cases of UD & FE it can treat an issue of ownership as an incident but only for the
purpose of making a decision on possession. Ex. In UD and FE the plaintiff may present in
court his tittle to the property to prove that he was also in physical possession of the
property.
Q: prescriptive period?
A: within 1year
Q:when shall the prescriptive period commence?
A: In forcible entry, the one-year period is generally counted from the date of actual entry on
the land; OR from the knowledge of FISTS.
in unlawful detainer, from the date of last demand.
The demand is considered jurisdictional in nature and must be alleged in the complaint
Requirements as part of the demand
1. Failure of the defendant to pay or comply with the condition of the lease
2. Failure to vacate
Not alleging this requirements in the demand, the court can dismiss the case of UD.
Q:What are the exceptions where demand is not required?
A:1) where the purpose of the action is to terminate the lease by reason of the expiry of its
term and is not for failure to pay rentals or comply with the terms of the lease contract (De
Santos vs. Vivas, 96 Phil. 538);
(2) when the purpose of the suit is not for ejectment but for the enforcement of the terms of
the contract (Guanson vs. Ban, 77 Phil. 7); or
(3) when the defendant is not a tenant but a mere intruder.
Q:In UD do you have to prove that you are in prior possession?
A: NO
Q: in FE?
A: YES must prove the prior possession of the property.
Note: UD CAN ALSO BE BASED ON THE ENTRY OF THE DEFENDANT BY TOLERANCE
Requisites ( CANLAS CASE)
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of
the plaintiff;

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the
termination of the latter's right of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.

Period to pay rentals


1. Parcel of land- 5 days to vacate 2. Buildings- 15 days to vacate
UD and FE governed by the rules on summary procedure.
Q:The Court, aside from awarding the rentals, attorney's fees, also awarded the moral and
exemplary damages is the court correct?
A: no, UD & FE cases can only grant back rentals and attorney's fees.
Q: will the appeal prevent/stay the execution?
A: if it is immediately executory, but you want to stay the execution because of your appeal
it must follow the requisites 1. Post a supersidious bond to the RTC 2. Must also pay the
rental monthly.
Q: how much is the supersidious bond?
A: must corresponds to the rental.
Q: you lost again in the RTC what will you do? What is your remedy?
A: file a petition for certiorari under rule 42
Q: upon motion of the plaintiff in spite of the pendency of the petition for certiorari under
rule 42 the MTC granted the execution and the defendant objected by saying "I have a
pending petition for review and I posted a supersidious bond, I have paid the rentals
monthly, is the judge correct for granting the motion for execution?
A: YES, because it is only when you apply in the RTC that the bond is applicable.
Q: in FE and UD the plaintiff wants immediate possession of the property in question while
the case is pending, what must the plaintiff do?
A:file a motion to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

You might also like