Landlord wants to eject overstaying tenant

Landlord wants to eject overstaying tenant "Dear PAO:I want to file a case for ejectment but I was told there were two kinds and now I do not know which to choose. What’s the difference between unlawful detainer and forcible entry? I want to kick out the travel agency renting my property because they have been overstaying for months now even though we have not renewed our contract. I already told them to leave and that we will not renew the contract anymore but still they stayed. RadieDear Radie: Both forcible entry and unlawful detainer are covered by Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines.Section 1 thereof states that “. . . 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 a contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action xxx for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.” The right to bring these actions before the courts is given to persons who have a better right to possess a certain property but however is not in actual possession of the same.The main difference between the two is the cause of action involved for the two actions. The Supreme Court enlightened us regarding the matter in this wise: “There are two entirely distinct and different causes of action under the aforequoted rule, to wit: (1) a case for forcible entry, which is an action to recover possession of a property from the defendant whose occupation thereof is illegal from the beginning as he acquired possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth and (2) a case for unlawful detainer, which is an action for recovery of possession from the defendant whose possession of the property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract (express or implied) with the plaintiff, but became illegal when he continued his possession despite the termination of his right thereunder.In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint, and prove, that he was in prior physical possession of the property in dispute until he was deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the means provided in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In unlawful detainer, there must be an allegation in the complaint of how the possession of defendant started or continued, that is, by virtue of lease or any contract, and that defendant holds possession of the land or building “after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.” (Citiation omitted) (Sarmienta, et.al. v Manalite Homeowners Association Inc., GR 182953, October 11, 2010)“. . . The two are distinguished from each other in that in forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the beginning, and that the issue is which party has prior de facto possession while in unlawful detainer, possession of the defendant is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature, lies in the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer. The issue in said cases is the right to physical possession.” (Citations omitted) (Spouses Valdez v CA and Spouses Fabella, GR 132424, May 2, 2006, 489 SCRA 369) From the foregoing, it is immediately clear, therefore, that the proper action for ejectment that you should file is one for unlawful detainer.You mentioned in your letter that the person you wish to evict is your lessee due to the fact that your contract has already expired.All the aforementioned requisites for filing an action for unlawful detainer are present in your case. However, you must first serve a written demand for them to vacate the premises and pay rentals in arrears, if any, before you may file said action. (Section 2, Rule 70, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines)Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net or via text message (key in: Times dearpao and send to 2299)." - https://www.affordablecebu.com/