Accion interdictal: Recovering possession
For the recovery of physical possession of real property, an ejectment suit or accion interdictal under Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is the potent legal option
Published in Daily Tribune on December 11, 2020
by: Migmar Bernped S. Francisco
Article 539 of the Civil Code states that every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession.
However, in reality, there have been numerous instances when a rightful possessor was dispossessed of the property he or she is legally entitled to hold. Some of these people assert their right of possession over the property in dispute through force or other unlawful means which should never be the case.
Fittingly, the law provides a plethora of means to secure and maintain property rights that must be considered.
For the recovery of physical possession of real property, an ejectment suit or accion interdictal under Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is the potent legal option.
Accion interdictal is an action for the recovery of physical or material possession of property which may either be forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahuico).
In forcible entry, a person is deprived of the physical possession of property by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, such as when a person enters another’s property clandestinely or through other means earlier mentioned.
In unlawful detainer, the possession is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract which may be express or implied or by tolerance.
An example of this is when a lease agreement expires and the lessee continues to occupy the leased premises against the lessor’s will.
In one case, the Supreme Court elucidated that in forcible entry, the possession by the interloper is illegal from the very beginning.
Thus, it is jurisdictional to allege that the person trying to recover the property had prior physical possession thereof and that he was unlawfully deprived of possession by the aforementioned means.
On the other hand, the possession by the interloper in unlawful detainer is lawful at the inception by virtue of an express or implied contract with the person entitled to possession but subsequently became illegal due to the termination of the right or authority.
Thus, it must be alleged that the defendant’s initial possession of the property was lawful and that the defendant continued to retain in possession of the property despite plaintiff’s notice of termination of the defendant’s right.
In unlawful detainer cases, Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that prior written demand be served by the lessor upon the lessee when the lessee has failed to pay or to comply with the conditions of the lease.
In such case, the written notice must contain a demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate the property.
A forcible entry case must be filed within one year from actual entry by the interloper on the property.
If the unlawful entry is effected by stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the owner or person entitled to legal possession learns of the unlawful entry. An unlawful detainer case, on the other hand, must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand.
Both cases must be filed before the municipal trial court having jurisdiction over the place where the property is located.
Worth noting is that in an ejectment proceeding, the court only resolves the issue of who has the better right to the material possession independent of any claim of ownership.
Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a judgment rendered shall only be conclusive with respect to possession and does not bind title or affect the ownership of the property.
As discussed in another Supreme Court case, the issue of ownership is only provisionally resolved if the issue of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon it. Accordingly, the parties may still litigate the issue of ownership in another proceeding.
Aptly put, Article 536 of the Civil Code proscribes the recovery of possession through force or intimidation.
He who believes himself to be the rightful possessor must invoke the aid of the court if the possessor refuses to deliver the thing.
Thus, the right of possession comes with the corresponding obligation to recover and maintain the property the right way, that is, by asserting the strength of one’s claim through legal means. The ardent vindication for one’s rights must always be achieved without trampling another’s.
