SECTION 15: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Reason for preliminary mandatory injunction It is to compel the defendant to prevent committing
further acts of dispossession. NOTE: What the plaintiff should file is a motion for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction and not “preliminary injunction” because such pertains to

No hearing on inferior courts

The plaintiff may ask for a writ for preliminary mandatory injunction within 5 days from the filing of the
complaint and the same shall be decided within 30 days from the filing thereof.

This is to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession. This is also a remedy of
the plaintiff to obtain possession of the premises during the pendency of the action (Riano, 2012).

NOTE: If judgment is appealed to the Regional Trial Court, said court may issue a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore the plaintiff in possession if the court is satisfied that the defendant's
appeal is frivolous or dilatory or that the appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious (Rule 70,
Section 20, RoC).

Preliminary mandatory injunction; applies in both unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases

Although Article 539 of the Civil Code provides that preliminary mandatory injunction is only possible in
forcible entry cases, Rule 70, Section 15 of the RoC made it applicable to both cases in view of B.P. Blg.
129, Section 33. B.P. Blg. 129, Section 33 states that “provided the main action is within its jurisdiction,
an inferior court can appoint a receiver and it has jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in
either forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases” (Day v. RTC of Zamboanga, GR No. 79119, November
22, 1990).

SECTION 16: RESOLVING DEFENSE OF OWNERSHIP

When the court may resolve the issue of ownership:

1. When the defendant raised that the issue of ownership

2. When the issue of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership

NOTE: The issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. Allegations of
ownership is not material in ejectment cases. Evidence of ownership will be allowed only for the court
to determine the character and extent of possession.

Ownership determined only to identify possession; separate action on title may be filed

Trial courts maintain jurisdiction over ejectment cases even if the question of possession cannot be
resolved without through the issue of ownership.

But ones the court determines the ownership of the property in an unlawful detainer case, it is only for
the sole purpose of determining the entitlement on the physical possession. Hence, the determination
of ownership is only provisional and does not bar an action between the same parties involving the title
to the land.
A judgment in forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than possession and declares
only who has the right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination
of who has the right or title of ownership (Javier v. Veridiano, GR No. L48050 October 10, 1994)

NOTE: Where the issues in the inferior court do not only raise the question of the possession of the lot
but also the rights of the parties to the building constructed thereon and for the recovery thereof,
jurisdiction is vested in the RTC as it is not one for ejectment but for specific performance.

Where, however, the defendant has built substantial building on the plaintiffs land and there is no
dispute as to the ownership of either said land or building by the parties, the inferior court does not lose
jurisdiction over the ejectment case and can adjudicate the rights of the parties thereover in accordance
with the Civil Code (Regalado, 2010).

Cases prejudicial to an ejectment suit; abates the latter

1. Injunction case filed in the RTC by the defendant

2. Consignation

3. Accion Publiciana

4. Writ of possession where the ownership is coincidentally the principal issue before the RTC

5. Action for quieting of title

SECTION 17: JUDGEMENT

If the court finds the allegations true

1. It shall render judgement in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises; and

2. Payment of the sum justly due as arrears for rent or as a reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the premises, attorney’s fees and costs

NOTE: The court can award the sum justly due, regardless of the amount because it is considered as the
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the defendant on the premises.

If the court finds that the allegations are not true

If the allegations of the defendant were found true, judgement is for the recovery of the costs.

If a counterclaim is established, the court shall render judgement for the sum found in arrears from
either party and award costs as justice requires.

NOTE: The counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the MTC.

The court can only award the following damages

1. The fair and reasonable value of the use and enjoyment of the property or the rent arising from the
loss of possession; or

2. Liquidated damages when they form part of the contract

NOTE: Moral damages (besmirched reputation, mental anguish and sleepless nights) cannot be awarded
because it is not considered as a reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises.
An action for ejectment is not abated by the death of the defendant as the question of damages must be
adjudicated (Regalado, 2010).

Damages caused on land and building; file in separate action

Physical damages on the premises cannot be claimed in an action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry
because it is not a reasonable compensation on the use of the premises. The lessor or owner must file a
separate ordinary action to ask for damages.

Plaintiff cannot claim moral damages; defendant may claim such on counterclaim

Plaintiff cannot claim damages other than that of the reasonable use and occupation of the premises.
However, the defendant may claim damages by way of a counterclaim as long as it is within the
jurisdictional amount of the MTC (not exceeding ₱300,000 or ₱400,000 if within Metro Manila)

Reasonable compensation for forcible entry

The plaintiff may ask for reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises by
showing evidence of the estimate amount of rent (e.g.: by asking neighbors who reside within the
vicinity to execute an affidavit stating the reasonable rate of rent).

Liquidated damages

If the contract of lease states a provision involving liquidated damages, the court may award such as it is
pursuant to the lease contract. (Azcuna Jr., v. CA, GR No. 116665, March 20, 1996)

Inferior courts may adjudicate and award damages more than their jurisdictional limit

MTCs may award actual damages beyond the jurisdictional limit in ordinary civil actions because the
reason of the monetary award is immaterial to the jurisdiction. The principal relief is the restoration of
possession and grant of damages by way of reasonable use and compensation of the premises. NOTE:
Damages other than reasonable rentals or fair rental value are not recoverable by the plaintiff.
Reasonable attorney’s fees may be allowed if the provisions of Art. 2208 of the Civil Code are applicable
(Regalado, 2010)

Binding of judgement

GR: Judgement on an ejectment case is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and given an
opportunity to be heard.

XPNs: It becomes binding on anyone who has not been impleaded in certain instances as follows:

1. A sublessee is bound by the judgment against the lessee because his right to the premises is merely
subsidiary to that of the lessee;

2. A guest or a successor in interest, the members of the family of the lessee or his servants and
employees are likewise bound by the judgment even if not impleaded in the suit for ejectment;
3. Trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the
judgment; and

4. Transferees pendente lite, sublessees and other privies of the defendant (Sunflower Neighborhood
Association v. CA, G.R. No. 136274, September 3, 2003).

NOTE: The plaintiff, in ejectment cases, is entitled to damages caused by his loss of the use and
possession of the premises, but not for damages caused on the land or building, which latter items of
damages should be recovered by plaintiff, if he is the owner, in an ordinary action (Santos v. Santiago, 38
Phil. 575).

However, it has been held that plaintiff can recover from defendant liquidated damages stipulated in the
lease contract (Gozon v. Vda. De Barrameda, G.R. No. 17473, June 30, 1964).

Profits, not included in damages to be awarded

While damages may be adjudged in forcible entry and detainer cases, these "damages" mean "rents" or
"the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises." Profits which the plaintiff
might have received were it not for the forcible entry or detainer do not represent a fair rental value
(Baens v. CA, Seng, GR No. L-57091 November 23, 1983)

SECTION 18: JUDGEMENT CONCLUSIVE ONLY ON POSSESSION: NOT CONCLUSIVE IN ACTIONS

INVOLVING TITLE OR OWNERSHIP

The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the
possession only and shall not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such
judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building (Rule
70, Section 18, RoC)

No res judicata in unlawful detainer or forcible entry and accion reindivicatoria

As to the issue of ownership, any resolution of the MTC is only for the purposes of determining who is
entitled to the possession of the premises.

Where to appeal

In case of an unfavorable judgement, the plaintiff or defendant may appeal to the RTC acting as an
appellate court.

When to appeal Appeal

must be done 15 days upon the receipt of the decision. The appellant must pay the docket fee.

Appeal on pure question of law

The judgement of the RTC is appealable to the CA if the issue involves question of facts, law or both
(Rule 42, RoC)

Case will be decided based on the entire record

 In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the RTC shall decide the appeal of the judgment of the MTC
in unlawful detainer or forcible entry cases on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in
the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be required by the RTC. There is no trial
de novo of the case (Manalang v. Bacani, GR No. 156995, January 12, 2015).