THREE KINDS OF ACTIONS TO JUDICIALLY RECOVER POSSESSION

I. Accion interdictal (Ejectment Suit)

- physical possession only or possession de facto
- dispossession has lasted for not more than one year -> in pursuance of the
summary nature of the action
- to a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or 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 the legal representatives or
assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person.1
- tolerance must be present right from the start of possession sought to be
recovered, to categorize a cause of action as one of unlawful detainer not of
forcible entry2
1. unlawful detainer suit (desahucio)
2. forcible entry (detentacion) – demand not necessary; unlawful from beginning3

II. Accion publiciana (possession de jure)

 plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession, which should
be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the dispossession has
lasted for more than one year
 prior physical possession not required4
III. Accion reivindicatoria
 Suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real property
as owner (Hilario v. Salvador, 457 SCRA 815, 825 (2005).
 Article 434 of the New Civil Code provides that to successfully maintain an
action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a
better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land
claimed5, and; second, his title thereto6

1
Encarnacion vs. Amigo, G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006
2
Valdez vs. CA, G..R. No. 132424 May 2, 2006
3
Menez vs. Militante, 41 Phil. 44
4
Gonzaga vs. CA, 546 SCRA 532
5
location, area and boundaries
6
HUTCHISON vs. BUSCAS G.R. No. 158554. May 26, 2005
Test: the material element that determines the proper action to be filed for the recovery
of the possession of the property in this case is the length of time of dispossession.7

Case: Bought land on 1995; Demand to vacate on 2001 ; SC: dispossession from 19958

Is demand necessary for Accion reivindicatoria? No.

 Rules of Court requiring demand refers to Unlawful Detainer: “Unless

otherwise stipulated, such action by the lesser shall be commenced only after
demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is
made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the
person found on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee
fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5)
days in the case of buildings.” (Rule 70, Sec. 2)
 Jurisprudence contemplates the enforcement or recession of a contract: As to
whether this demand is merely a demand to pay rent or comply with the
conditions of the lease or also a demand to vacate, the answer can be gleaned
from said Section 2. This section presupposes the existence of a cause of
action for unlawful detainer as it speaks of "failure to pay rent due or comply
with the conditions of the lease." The existence of said cause of action gives
the lessor the right under Article 1659 of the New Civil Code to ask for the
rescission of the contract of lease and indemnification for damages, or only
the latter, allowing the contract to remain in force. Accordingly, if the option
chosen is for specific performance, then the demand referred to is obviously
to pay rent or to comply with the conditions of the lease violated. However, if
rescission is the option chosen, the demand must be for the lessee to pay rents
or to comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate. Accordingly, the
rule that has been followed in our jurisprudence where rescission is clearly
the option taken, is that both demands to pay rent and to vacate are necessary
to make a lessee a deforciant in order that an ejectment suit may be filed
(Casilan et al. vs. Tomassi, L-16574, February 28,1964, 10 SCRA 261; Rickards
vs. Gonzales, 109 Phil. 423, Dikit vs. Icasiano, 89 Phil. 44)

7
Encarnacion.
8
Encarnacion