FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER- RULE 70

I. Who may institute proceedings and when - Sec. 1, Rule 70

A. Three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession of real

property - Bokingko v. CA, GR No. 161739, 04 May 2006

B. Distinct and different causes of action under Sec. 1, Rule 70

Sarmienta v. Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc.,
GR No. 182953, 11 October 2010
Sps. Munoz v. CA, GR No. 102693, 23 September 1992
David v. Cordova, GR No. 152992, 28 July 2005

C. Venue of ejectment cases Sec. 1, Rule 4

Exceptions: 1. specific rule or law provides otherwise

2. parties stipulated in writing as to venue

D. Venue on unlawful detainer -

Union Bank of the Phils. v.Maunlad Homes, Inc.
GR No. 190071, 15 August 2012

E. Jurisdiction of actions to judicially recover possession of real

property - Dela Cruz v. CA, GR No. 139442, 06 December 2006
Nunez v. Slteas Phoenix Solutions, Inc.
G.R. No. 180542, 12 April 2010

F. What to allege in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases

Sarmienta v. Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc.,
supra.

G. What constitute sufficient allegations for unlawful detainer

Cabrera v. Getaruela, GR No. 164213, 21April 2009

H. What constitute sufficient allegations for forcible entry

Dela Cruz v. CA, supra.
Sps. Del Rosario v. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
 GR No. 170575, 08 June 2011
Sarona v. Villegas, GR no. L-22984, 07 March 1968
Sps. Munoz v. CA, supra.

I. Matters to be resolved in the action for forcible entry

Sps. Munoz v. CA, supra.

J. Matters to be resolved in the action for unlawful detainer

Barrientos v. Rapal, GR No. 169594, 20 July 2011

K. Issue of possession in the concept of an owner

distinguished in forcible entry
Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, GR No. 174191
30 January 2013

L. Complaint based on possession by tolerance is a specie of

unlawful detainer
Jose v. Alfuerto, G.R. No. 169380, 26 November 2012
Dela Cruz v. CA, supra.
Santos v. Ayon, G.R. No. 137013, 06 May 2005

M. Non-abatement of ejectment actions; Cases that do not

constitute litis pendentia sufficient for dismissal/suspension of
ejectment actions
Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. v. CA, GR No. 97637, 10 April 1992

N. Parties to an ejectment action

Catedrilla v. Lauron, GR No. 179011, 15 April 2013
Tiac v. Natividad, GR No. L-1457, 26 January 1948
Vda. De Salazar v. CA, GR No. 121510, 23 Nov 1995
- Ejectment action not extinguished by death of defendant

O. Parties bound by judgment in ejectment suit

Oro Can Enterprises v. CA, GR No. 128743, 29 Nov 1999

II. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand Sec. 2, Rule 70

A. When demand would not necessary according to substantive

 law Articles 1669, 1670, 1687, Civil Code

B. Effect of owners demand to vacate and tenants refusal to do so

Siapian v. CA, GR No. 111928, 01 March 2000
Casilan v. Tomasi, GR No. L-16574, 28 February 1964
Lesaca v. Cuevas, GR No. L-484419, 27 October 1983
Cebu Automatic Motors, Inc. v. GMC, GR No. 151168
25 August 2010

C. When demand to vacate is prequisite in action for unlawful

detainer - Lanuza v. Munoz, GR No. 147372, 27 May 2004
Republic v. Sunvar Realty Devt Corp, GR No. 194880
20 June 2012

D. Demand to vacate not jurisdictional when ground is expiration

of term of lease - Tubiano v. Razo, GR No. 132598
13 July 2000
E. The one-year period to bring an action for forcible entry
when counted Nunez v. Slteas Phoenix Solutions, Inc.,
supra.
F. The one-year to bring an action for unlawful detainer when counted
Republic v. Sunvar Realty Devt Corp, GR No. 194880
20 June 2012

G. Effect of dispossession lasted for more than one year

H. Rule on tacita reconduccion implied new lease

Allegations of tacita reconduccion cannot oust MeTC
of jurisdiction - Yuki, Jr. v. Wellington Co., GR No. 178527
27 Nov 2009
Arevalo Gomez Corp. v. Lao Lian Hiong
GR No. 70360, 11 March 1987
Samelo v. Manotok Services, Inc.
GR No. 170509, 27 June 2012

III. Summary procedure in ejectment actions Section 3, Rule 70

A. Exceptions/when summary procedure not applicable:

1. when law provides otherwise

2. cases involving agricultural tenancy laws

B. Nature and purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure

Gachon v. De Vera, GR No. 116695, 20 June 1997

C. Referral for conciliation Section 12, Rule 70

1. Effect of non-compliance dismissal without prejudice
2. non-compliance not jurisdictional Aquino v. Aure
GR No. 153567
18 February 2008
D. Pleadings

1. Allowed pleadings Section 4, Rule 70

2. prohibited pleadings Section 13, Rule 70

3. petition for certiorari - Bayog v. Natino, GR No. 118691

05 July 1996
Go v. CA, GR No. 128954
08 October 1998

E. Action on complaint Section 5, Rule 70

1. dismissal motu proprio

2. service of summons

F. Preliminary injunction Sections 15 and 16, Rule 70

G. Answer Section 6, Rule 70

H. Effect of Failure to File Answer Section 7, Rule 70

Don Tino Realty and Devt Corp. v. Florentino, GR No. 134222
10 September 1999
Gachon v. De Vera, supra.
Rosales v. CA, GR No. 95697, 05 August 1991
Co Keng Kian v. IAC, GR No. 75676, 29 August 1990
I. Preliminary conference Section 8, Rule 70

J. Record of preliminary conference Section 9, Rule 70

K. Submission of affidavits and position papers Sec. 10, Rule 70

1. Contents of Affidavits Section 14, Rule 70

L. Period for rendition of judgment Section 11, Rule 70

M. Issue of ownership to be resolved to determine issue of

possession - Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, supra.

N. Authority of the trial court to interpret contracts in an unlawful

detainer action - Union Bank of the Phils. v.Maunlad Homes,
Inc., supra.

O. Guidelines on jurisdiction to resolve ownership as incident to an

ejectment action - Sps. Refugia v. CA, GR No. 118284
05 July 2006

P. Judgment Section 17, Rule 70

1. Relief afforded plaintiff

a. Restitution of premises
b. arrears of rent and legal costs

2. other damages must be claimed in an ordinary action

Hualam Construction and Devt Corp. v, CA, GR No. 85466
16 October 1992
Azcuna, Jr. v. CA, GR No. 116665, 20 March 1996

3. judgment on counterclaim
Rodriguez v. Salvador, GR No. 171972, 08 June 2011
 4. conclusive only as to possession; not conclusive in actions
involving title or ownership Section 18, Rule 70
Heirs of Basilia Hernandez v. Vergara, Jr., GR No. 166975
15 September 2006

5. immediate execution; how to stay execution Section 19, Rule

70
Acbang v. Luczon, Jr., GR No. 164246, 15 Jan 2014
Exception:
Aznar Bros. Realty Inc. v. CA, GR No. 128102, 07 Mar 2000

6. Motion for reconsideration of judgment on the merits prohibited

Lucas v. Fabros, AM No MTJ-99-1226, 31 January 2000

Q. Appeal par. 2, Section 18, Rule 70

R. Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of appeal Section 20,

Rule 70

S. Immediate execution of RTC judgment on appeal to the CA or the

SC Section 21, Rule 70
ALPA-PCM, Inc. v. Bulasao, GR No. 197124, 19 March 2012
La Campana Devt Corp. v. Ledesma, GR No. 154152
25 August 2010
Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR No. 167471, 05 February 2007

T. Salient provisions of RA 9653 (Rent Control Law)

Grounds for judicial ejectment Section 9, RA 9653
Prohibition against Ejectment by reason of sale or mortgage-
Section 10, RA 9653)

CONTEMPT - RULE 71

I. Direct contempt Section 1, Rule 71

A. Definition, nature and purpose of contempt of court

Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management
Association of the Phils., GR No. 155849, 31 August 2011
 B. Distinctions between civil and criminal contempt
Rosario Textile Mills, Inc. v. CA, GR No. 137326, 25 Aug 2003
Ceniza v. Wishtehuff, Sr., GR No. 165734, 16 June 2006

C. Contemptuous statements in pleadings constitute direct

contempt Cruz v. Gingoyon, GR No. 170404, 28 Sept 2011
D. In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense
St. Louis University, Inc. v. Olairez, GR No. 162299, 26 March
2014

E. Failure to attend hearing not direct contempt but indirect

contempt - Silva v. Lee, Jr., AM No. R-225-RTJ, 26 Jan 1989

F. Other provisions on contempt

Section 5, Rule 7
Section 9, Rule 21
Section 2, Rule 29
Section 43, rule 39

II. Remedy from direct contempt - Section 2, Rule 71

III. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing Section 3,

Rule 71

A Acts constituting indirect contempt

Roxas v. Tipon, GR Nos. 160641-42, 20 June 2012
Patagan v. Panis, GR No. L-55730, 08 April 1988
GR No. 117266, 13 March 1997
Reer v. Lubao, AM OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ, 20 July 2012
Tinagan v. Perlas, Jr., GR No. L-23965, 30 January 1968
But see: Cortes v. Bangalan, AM No. MTJ-97-1129
19 January 2000

B. Definition and procedure for indirect contempt

Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management
Association of the Phils., supra.
IV. How proceedings commenced Section 4, Rule 71

A Procedure for indirect contempt

Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Sanchez
GR No. 182738, 24 February 2014

V. Where charge to be filed - Section 5, Rule 71

A. Indirect contempt must be filed before the court against

which the indirect contempt was committed
Lee v. RTC-Quezon City, GR No. 146006, 22 April 2005

VI. Hearing; release on bail - Section 6, Rule 71

VII. Punishment for indirect contempt Section 7, Rule 71

Lee v. RTC-Quezon City, supra.

VIII. Imprisonment until order obeyed Section 8, Rule 71

Montenegro v. Montenegro, GR No. 156829, 08 June 2004

IX. Proceeding when party released on bail falls to answer - Section 9,

Rule 71
X. Court may release respondent - Section 10, Rule 71

XI. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay - Section 11, Rule 71
Yasay, Jr. v. Recto, GR No. 129521, 07 September 1999
Digital Telecommunications, Inc. v. Cantos, GR No. 180200
25 Nov 2013

XII. Contempt against quasi-judicial entitles Section 12, Rule 71

LBP v. Listana Jr., GR No. 152611, 05 August 2003