Atty. Judiel M.

Pareja
 Replevin

An action or provisional
remedy where the
complainant prays for the
recovery of the POSSESSION
of PERSONAL PROPERTY.
A party praying for the recovery
of possession of personal
property may, at the
commencement of the action or
at any time before answer, apply
for an order for the delivery of
such property to him, in the
manner hereinafter provided.
(Sec. 1, Rule 60, Rules of Court).
The applicant must show by his
own affidavit or that of some
other person who personally
knows the facts:

(a) That the applicant is the

owner of the property claimed,
particularly describing it, or is
entitled to the possession
thereof;
(b) That the property is wrongfully
detained by the adverse party, alleging the
cause of detention thereof according to the
best of his knowledge, information, and
belief ;

(c) That the property has not been

distrained or taken for a tax assessment or
a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a
writ of execution or preliminary
attachment, or otherwise placed under
custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is
exempt from such seizure or custody; and

(d) The actual market value of the

property. (Sec. 1, Rule 60, Rules of Court).
The court then orders the sheriff to
take such property into his custody.
(See Sec. 3, Rule 60, Rules of Court).

Under the old law, it was the clerk of

court who made the order. (Sec. 263,
Act 190).
If the property of any part thereof
be concealed in a building or
enclosure, and not delivered upon
demand, the sheriff must cause the
building or enclosure to be broken
open. He then takes the property.
(See Sec. 4, Rule 60, Rules of
Court).
 BA FINANCE CORPORATION vs. CA
G.R. No. 102998 July 5, 1996

Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of

principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It may
refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain the
possession of personal chattels being wrongfully
detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the
provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to
retain the thing during the pendency of the action
and hold it pendente lite. The action is primarily
possessory in nature and generally determines
nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin
is so usually described as a mixed action, being
partly in rem and partly in personam in
rem insofar as the recovery of specific property is
concerned, and in personam as regards to damages
involved.
As an "action in rem," the gist of the replevin action
is the right of the plaintiff to obtain possession of
specific personal property by reason of his being the
owner or of his having a special interest
therein. Consequently, the person in possession of
the property sought to be replevied is ordinary the
proper and only necessary party defendant, and the
plaintiff is not required to so join as defendants
other persons claiming a right on the property but
not in possession thereof. In case the right of
possession on the part of the plaintiff, or his
authority to claim such possession or that of his
principal, is put to great doubt, it could become
essential to have other persons involved and
accordingly impleaded for a complete determination
and resolution of the controversy.
 Accion
interdictal
Accion interdictal comprises two
distinct causes of action, namely,
forcible entry (detentacion) and
unlawful detainer (desahuico).
 Forcible Entry
(Detentacion)
It is a summary action to recover material
or physical possession of real property
when a person originally in possession
was deprived thereof by: (FISTS)
F-orce;
I-ntimidation;
S-trategy;
T-hreat; or
S-tealth. (See Rule 70, Sec. 1, Rule of
Court).
The action must be brought within one
year from the dispossession. However,
in case of strategy or stealth, it would
seem that the better rule would be to
count the period of one year from the
time of DISCOVERY of such strategy or
stealth.
 JOSE vs. ALFUERTO
G.R. No. 169380, November 26, 2012

The purpose of allowing actions for forcible

entry and unlawful detainer to be decided in
summary proceedings is to provide for a
peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of
preventing an alleged illegal possessor of
property from unjustly taking and continuing
his possession during the long period it
would take to properly resolve the issue of
possession de jure or ownership, thereby
ensuring the maintenance of peace and order
in the community; otherwise, the party
illegally deprived of possession might take
the law in his hands and seize the property
by force and violence.
 QUIJANO vs. ATTY. AMANTE
G.R. No. 164277, October 8, 2014

Where the plaintiff does not prove her alleged

tolerance of the defendant's occupation, the
possession is deemed illegal from the
beginning. Hence, the action for unlawful
detainer is an improper remedy. But the action
cannot be considered as one for forcible entry
without any allegation in the complaint that
the entry of the defendant was by means of
force, intimidation, threats, strategy or
stealth.
 COPUYOC vs. DE SOLA
G.R. No. 151322, October 11, 2006

The principal issue to be resolved in forcible entry

cases is mere physical or material possession
(possession de facto) and not juridical possession
(possession de jure) nor ownership of the property
involved. Title is not involved. Thus, in David v.
Cordova, the Court explained:

The only question that the courts must resolve in

ejectment proceedings is - who is entitled to the
physical possession of the premises xxx. It does
not even matter if a partys title to the property is
questionable xxx. Regardless of the actual
condition of the title to the property, the party in
peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out
by a strong hand, violence or terror.
Thus, a party who can prove prior possession
can recover such possession even against the
owner himself. Whatever may be the character
of his possession, if he has in his favor prior
possession in time, he has the security that
entitles him to remain on the property until a
person with a better right lawfully ejects him.
To repeat, the only issue that the court has to
settle in an ejectment suit is the right to
physical possession.
 Unlawful Detainer
(desahucio)
Unlawful detainer is the action that must be
brought when possession by a landlord,
vendor, vendee or other person of any land
or building is being unlawfully withheld after
the expiration or termination of the right to
hold possession, by virtue of any contract,
express or implied. In such a case, prior
physical possession IS NOT required.
 SARMIENTO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 116192 November 16, 1995

In unlawful detainer, the possession was

originally lawful but became unlawful by
the expiration or termination of the right
to possess, hence the issue of rightful
possession is decisive for, in such action,
the defendant is in actual possession and
the plaintiffs cause of action is the
termination of the defendant's right to
continue in possession.
 Municipality of Batangas vs. Santos
L-4012, June 30, 1952

It is, however, not a proper remedy if

the purpose is not to recover
possession but to exact specific
performance of a contract.
 Malabanan vs. Rural Bank of Cabuyao,
Inc.
G.R. No. 163495, May 8, 2009

A person who occupies the land of another

with the latters tolerance or permission,
without any contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an implied promise
that he will vacate upon demand, failing
which a summary action for ejectment is
the proper remedy against him.
 ASIS vs. ASIS VDA. DE GUEVARRA
G.R. No. 167554, February 26, 2008

In an action for unlawful detainer, the municipal

or metropolitan trial court has jurisdiction when
the plaintiff really and primarily seeks the
restoration of possession; even if there is a need
to resolve the ownership of the disputed property
to determine who has prior possession. As long
as the issue of ownership is to be
ascertained ONLY for the purpose of determining
the issue of possession, then the court can make
a declaration who among the contending parties
is the real owner of the property. Any such
pronouncement is to be regarded merely as
provisional, and will not bar nor prejudice an
action between the same parties involving title to
the disputed property.
 Go vs. Looyuko
G.R. No. 196529, July 01, 2013

The Court has consistently upheld the

registered owners superior right to possess the
property in unlawful detainer cases. It is an
age-old rule that the person who has a Torrens
Title over a land is entitled to its possession. It
has repeatedly been emphasized that when the
property is registered under the Torrens
system, the registered owners title to the
property is presumed legal and cannot be
collaterally attacked, especially in a mere
action for unlawful detainer. It has even been
held that it does not even matter if the partys
title to the property is questionable.
 PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION vs.
LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 161589, November 24, 2014

A defendant's claim of possession de jure or

his averment of ownership does not render
the ejectment suit either accion publiciana
or accion reivindicatoria. The suit remains an
accion interdictal, a summary proceeding
that can proceed independently of any claim
of ownership. Even when the question of
possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership is to be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.
 Romullo vs. Samahang
Magkakapitbahay ng Bayanihan
Compound Homeowners Association, Inc.
G.R. No. 180687, October 6, 2010

An unlawful detainer proceeding is

summary in nature, jurisdiction of which
lies with the proper municipal trial court
or metropolitan trial court.
 Accion
Publiciana
It is intended for the recovery of the better right
to possess, and is a plenary action in an
ordinary civil proceeding before a Regional
Trial Court, and must be brought within a period
of ten years, otherwise, the real right of
possession is lost. The issue is not possession
de facto but possession de jure.
 SPOUSES VALDEZ vs. CA
G..R. No. 132424, May 2, 2006

Accion publiciana is the plenary action to

recover the right of possession which should be
brought in the proper regional trial court when
dispossession has lasted for more than one
year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to
determine the better right of possession of
realty independently of title. In other words, if
at the time of the filing of the complaint more
than one year had elapsed since defendant had
turned plaintiff out of possession or
defendants possession had become illegal, the
action will be, not one of the forcible entry or
illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.
 BEJAR vs. CALUAG
G.R. No. 171277, February 15, 2007

There are two distinctions between the

summary ejectment suits (unlawful detainer and
forcible entry) and accion publiciana. The first
lies in the period within which each one can be
instituted. Actions for unlawful detainer and
forcible entry must be filed within one year from
the date possession is lost, while an accion
publiciana may be filed only after the expiration
of that period but within the period prescribed in
the statute of limitations. The second distinction
involves jurisdiction. An accion publiciana may
only be filed with the RTC, while a complaint for
unlawful detainer or forcible entry may only be
filed with the first level courts earlier
mentioned.
 Accion
Reivindicatoria
The accion reivindicatoria or reivindicatory
action is defined as an action to recover
ownership over real property. The action must be
brought in the Regional Trial Court where the
real estate is situated. The fact that the value of
the improvements on the land is less than the
jurisdictional amount does not deprive the RTC of
its authority to take cognizance of an accion
reivindicatoria. It must be brought within 10
years or 30 years as the case may be (depending
on whether the other party seeks to obtain
ownership by ordinary or extraordinary
prescription).
 BEJAR vs. CALUAG
G.R. No. 171277, February 15, 2007

Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, two

things must be alleged and proven in an
accion reinvidicatoria: (1) the identity of
the property and (2) plaintiffs title to it.
Sole and exclusive jurisdiction over cases
for accion reinvidicatoria is vested in the
RTC.
 SERDONCILLO vs. SPOUSES BENOLIRAO
G.R. No. 118328 October 8, 1998

Accion reivindicatoria or accion de

reivindicacion is thus an action whereby
plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel
of land and seeks recovery of its full
possession. It is different from accion
interdictal or accion publiciana where
plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better
right to possess without claim of title.