EJECTMENT suits are designed to summarily restore physical possession to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession.
They are “summary in nature” for they involve perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible; the underlying philosophy behind an ejectment suit is to prevent breach of the peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his. (Mangaser vs. Ugay, 744 SCRA 13 [2014])
Possession de facto
The only question that the courts must resolve in summary ejectment suits (unlawful detainer and forcible entry) is who between the contending parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property in dispute.
In ejectment cases, possession means nothing more than actual physical possession (possession de facto).
Even the lawful owner of a parcel of land—as emphasized by the Supreme Court in one case—can be ousted or evicted therefrom by a lessee or tenant who holds a better or superior right to the material or physical (or de facto) possession thereof by virtue of a valid lease or leasehold right thereto. (Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc. vs. Ando, 791 SCRA 337)
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, distinguished
Ejectment (or accion interdictal) takes on two forms: forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court, forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action.
In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.
Furthermore, in forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the “prior” possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff‘s cause of action is the termination of the defendant’s right to continue in possession.
Essential requisites
To justify an action for unlawful detainer, the following essential requisites must concur: (1) the fact of lease by virtue of an implied or expressed contract; (2) the expiration or termination of the possessor’s right to hold possession; (3) withholding of the possession of the land or building after the expiration or the termination of the right to possession by the lessee; (4) written demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises; (5) the action must be filed within one (1) year from date of last demand received by the lessee. (Colegio Medico-Farmaceutico De Filipinas, Inc. vs. Lim, G.R. No. 212034, July 02, 2018)
In personam
Ejectment suits are actions in personam wherein judgment only binds parties who had been properly impleaded and were given an opportunity to be heard.
In the case of Quilo vs. Bajo (802 SCRA 299), it was held that ejectment suits may bind one who has not been summoned or impleaded if he or she is: (a) a trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) a transferee pendente lite; (d) a sublessee; (e) a co-lessee; or (f) a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.
