8. Complaint for Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer

Determining Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer

The allegation in the complaint that there was unlawful withholding of possession is sufficient to make out a case for unlawful detainer. Hence, the phrase "unlawful withholding" has been held to imply possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant. (Ross Rica v Sps. Ong G.R. 132197, 2005)

In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which Section 1 of Rule 70 provides a summary remedy, and must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence. Such remedy is either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. (Zacarias v. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, 2014)

There are two reasons why the complaint was not for unlawful detainer. Firstly, by averring that the respondent constructed his shanty on the lot without their consent and then praying that the MeTC direct the respondent to pay them rent from the inception of the respondent’s occupation of the lot, no other conclusion can be made except that the petitioners had always considered respondent’s occupation of the same to be unlawful from the very beginning. It is a settled rule that in order to justify an action for unlawful detainer, the owner’s permission or tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession.

Secondly, what the petitioners actually filed was a fatally defective complaint for forcible entry, considering that there was no allegation therein regarding the petitioners’ prior physical possession of the lot.

In actions for forcible entry, two allegations are mandatory for the MTC to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property; and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

The word “possession” as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, means nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession in contemplated in civil law." (Sales v Barro, G.R. 171678, 2008).

Plaintiff

• Forcible Entry: a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; or
• Unlawful Detainer:
• 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;
• His/her legal representatives or assigns.

Note: The plaintiff in forcible entry or unlawful detainer actions must be entitled to the physical possession of the property. He/she does not necessarily have to be the owner of such.

Jurisprudential Requisites for Unlawful Detainer

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:

• Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
• Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
• Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
• Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. (Zacarias v. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, 2014)

Two-fold Demand

In unlawful detainer cases, unless there exists a stipulation to the contrary, such actions shall only be commenced after demand is made on the lessee in any of the following forms:

• To pay and vacate; or
• To comply with the conditions of the lease and vacate.

A mere notice giving the lessee the alternative either to pay the rental or vacate the premises does not comply with Section 2. (Vda. de Murga v. Chan, G.R. No. L-24680, 1980)

The term “vacate” need not be stated if there are other terms definitively implying that the tenant should vacate (Golden Gate Realty Corporation v. IAC, G.R. No. 74289, 1987) However, the Golden Gate ruling will not apply if the demand is ambiguous. (La Campana v. CA, G.R. No. L-88246, 1993).

Questions to be Resolved in an Forcible Entry

• Who had actual possession over the piece of real property?
• Was the possessor ousted therefrom within one year from the filing of the complaint by force, threat, strategy or stealth?
• Does he ask for the restoration of his possession? (Dizon v. Concina, G.R. No. L23756, 1969)