RULE 70: FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

FAST FACTS

DOCTRINE

NOTES

544 Vda. de Ampil v.

Alvendia (1964)

CASE TITLE

Petitioners pray for a writ

directing respondent to order
execution pending appeal of
a Municipal Court decision
directing Vicente Manuel to
vacate the premises held by
him as lessee. Petitioners
filed motion praying that, as
provided by Rule 72, sec 8, of
(old) RoC, judgment under
appeal be executed & the
defendant-appellant ordered
to vacate. Respondent judge
found that appellant had
been making the monthly
deposits exacted by the
appealed judgment & "it
cannot, therefore, be said
that the defendant has failed
to make the monthly deposit
on time"

Sec 8 of the Rules "requires

as a condition sine qua non
that the judgment shall make
specific findings as to the
existence and the terms of
the contract. The words 'as
found by the judgment' are
very material." (Khim vs. Yan,
et al)

545 City of Manila v. CA

and Santos (1987)

City
filed
ejectment
proceedings
against
respondent-lessee
for
refusing increased rates and
refusing to vacate. City
appealed ruling of CFI in its
favor. Santos countered that
a writ of execution could not
be issued because there was
no supersedeas bond filed, &
that
the
judgment
was
conditional
Case #1 MTC: unlawful
detainer case against Sps.

No finding in MTC decision

that the contract of lease
required the monthly rent to
be paid w/in the 5 days of
each month. While the initial
complaint did allege that,
mere allegation do not satisfy
the requirements. Sec 8, Rule
72 (old) expressly prescribes
that the defendant-appellant
should pay or deposit, during
the
dependency
of
the
appeal, the amount of rent
from time to time under the
contract, as found by the
judgment of the justice of the
peace/municipal
court
to
exist, or in the absence of
contract, he pays to the
plaintiff or unto the Court, on
or before the 10th day of each
calendar month.
Execution pending appeal in
ejectment cases may be
availed of by both lessee and
lessor. In either situation,
however, it is always the
lessor who must pay the
supersedeas
bond
and
deposit the rental fees in
court.

546 - San Pedro v. CA

(1994)

Judgment in an ejectment suit

favourable to the plaintiff are

The Court overturned its

previous ruling in Cruz v Jugo
& held that Rule 70 Sec 8 can
apply even if it is the lessor
who appeals. In this situation,
the lessee must still be the
one to file the supersedeas
bond if he wants to prevent
execution pending appeal.

547 Sunflower
Neighborhood Association
v. CA (2003)

548 Floyd v. Gonzales

(2008)

Loresto. Judgment against

Spouses to vacate so they
appealed to RTC.
Case #2 RTC: action for
annulment of Ledesmas title
In Case #1, Ledesma filed a
motion for execution pending
appeal
The petitioners members
were occupiers of a portion of
the land in controversy. They
were
not
impleaded
as
defendants in the unlawful
detainer case. They ask that
they be excluded from the
demolition & eviction. SC
ruled against them since they
are trespassers & squatters
who do not have any right to
occupy the land.

Petitioners are occupants of a

lot. The complaint charged
Abarnas of constructing a
house on the subj land
through stealth & strategy.
Nisperoses
claimed
ownership & prior possession
by
succession.
MTCC
dismissed. RTC reversed. CA
affirmed RTC. When Sheriffs

immediately executory and

the pendency of another
action involving ownership of
the subject property does not
abate the ejectment suit or
bar an execution of a
judgment therein.
Although an ejectment suit is
an
action
in
personam
wherein the judgment is
binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded & given
an opportunity to be heard,
the
judgment
becomes
binding on anyone who has
not been impleaded if he/she
is: (a) a trespasser, squatter
or agent of the defendant
fraudulently occupying the
property to frustrate the
judgment; (b) a guest or
occupant of the premises w/
the
permission
of
the
defendant; (c) a transferee
pendente
lite;
(d)
a
sublessee; (e) a co-lessee or
(f) a member of the family,
relative or privy of the
defendant.
An ejectment suit is an action
in
personam
wherein
judgment is binding only upon
parties properly impleaded &
given an opportunity to be
heard. Petitioners were not
made
party-defendants.
Hence, they can be bound by
said
judgment
in
the
ejectment suit, even if they

went
to
the
land
to
implement the writs, they
found that petitioners &
Ongsotto were also occupying
the property. Petitioners &
Ongsotto filed a complaint for
injunction. RTC issued WPI.
Upon being transferred to RTC
San Fernando, RTC dismissed
injunction complaint. Court
recognized the Nisperoses'
prior possession & claim. CA
ruled against petitioners.

were
not
impleaded
as
defendants, only if they are
shown to be (a) trespassers,
squatters or agents of the
defendant
fraudulently
occupying the property to
frustrate the judgment; (b)
guests or other occupants of
the
premises
w/
the
permission of the defendant;
(c) transferees pendente lite;
(d)
sub-lessees;
(e)
colessees; or (f) members of the
family, relatives & other
privies of the defendant. In
such cases, court hearing is a
must
to
determine
the
character of such possession.
If the execution court finds
that
they
are
mere
successors-in-interest, guests,
or agents of the defendant,
the order of execution shall
be enforced against them.
In the forcible entry case,
petitioners had not been
given their day in court to
present their side to prove
their
alleged
bona
fide
possession. Neither was a
court hearing held to prove
that
they
are
mere
successors-in-interest, guests,
or agents of Abarnas when
the ejectment judgment was
sought to be enforced against
them. Thus, they cannot be
bound by the decision in the
ejectment case.

549 - Pagtalunan v. Dela

Cruz (2007)

Patricio
(petitioners
stepfather), entered into a
contract
to
sell
w/
respondent.
The
downpayment was paid but
the
monthly
installments
were allegedly stopped w/o
any justification. Respondent
averred that they entered
into
an
agreement
suspending the payment w/in
a certain period. Respondent
claimed she did not resume
paying
her
monthly
installment because of the
unlawful acts by Patricio, &
the filing of the ejectment
case against her. Petitioner
then filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer. MTC ruled
in favor of petitioner. RTC
reversed.
A
judicial
determination of rescission
must be secured by petitioner
as a condition precedent to
convert the possession de
facto of respondent from
lawful to unlawful. CA found
that the parties, the MTC &
RTC, failed to apply the
Maceda law.

In a sale of real property by

installments, the cancellation
of the contract to sell must
comply w/ the provisions of
the
Maceda
Law,
which
requires a notarial act of
rescission & the refund to the
buyer of the full payment of
the cash surrender value of
the payments on the property.

Judge
Gacott
filed
a
complaint w/ SC to cite
Reynoso & De Leon for
indirect contempt for an

Snide remarks or sarcastic

innuendoes
do
not
necessarily assume that level
of
contumely
which
is

RULE 71: CONTEMPT

550 - People v. Godoy
(1995)

Please see the case digest for

a long discussion of the
nature,
purpose,
and
character
of
contempt

article written by Reynoso &

published in a newspaper of
general circulation. Accdg to
him, article tends to impede,
obstruct, belittle, downgrade
& degrade the administration
of justice ... and that the
article is sub judice because
it is still pending automatic
review.

551 Ang v. Judge Castro

(1985)

552 People v. Torio

(1982)

Ang lodged w/ the SC an

administrative
complaint
against Judge Castro for
ignorance of the law, gross
inexcusable
negligence,
incompetence,
etc.
Respondent judge found him
guilty of contempt of court.
Respondent
denied
petitioners notice of appeal
allegedly because this direct
contempt
conviction
is
unappealable.
Appeal from the order of CFI,
finding Judge Estrada guilty of
contempt of court for having
failed to appear at the
scheduled time of the hearing
of
a
criminal
case
&
sentencing him "to pay a fine
of P50 within 24 hrs from
receipt of the copy of the
order.

actionable under Rule 71.

The rule applicable in this
case is that where the entire
case
has
already
been
appealed,
jurisdiction
to
punish for contempt rests w/
the appellate court where the
appeal completely transfers
the proceedings thereto or
where there is a tendency to
affect the status quo or
otherwise interfere with the
jurisdiction of the appellate
court.
Filing of a complaint against a
judge would not constitute a
direct contempt. If at all, it
may be a ground for indirect
contempt
which
is
appealable.

Failure to appear in court for

trial is not a direct contempt,
summarily punishable under
Sec 1 of Rule 71, for it is not a
misbehavior in the presence
of or so near a court or judge
as
to
interrupt
the
administration of justice. It
may, however, constitute an
indirect contempt punishable
only after written charges &
hearing under Sec 3, Rule 71,

proceedings.

553 Pascua v. Heirs of

Simeon (1988)

554 Tacardon v. Ang

(2005)

555 Regalado v. Go
(2007)

Heirs of Simeon won a civil

case. 20 parcels of land were
levied upon & sold at public
auction
to
satisfy
the
judgment. Heirs were the
highest bidders. Pascua &
Dugay refused to vacate.
Thus, the heirs moved to
have
them
declared
in
contempt.
Judge
Alzate
granted this.
SC
denied
petitioners
Petition. Atty. Cruz filed a
pleading
accusing
SC
members to have based their
decisions not on the rule of
law but on the rule of the
powerful & the influential can
be worse than the most
heinous crimes. Cruz filed a
Manifestation w/c stated
that the minute resolutions
were authored by someone
else not part of the justices.
SC decided to discipline Atty.
Cruz even if the decision of
his
clients
was
already
decided.
LA ruled Go was illegally
dismissed. On appeal, EHSI,
et.al. employed a law firm
where
Regalado
worked.
NLRC
reversed.
Parties
decided
to
settle.
Execution
of
the
compromise agreement was
attended by Atty. Regalado as
counsel for EHSI & Go but in

par. (b).
Refusal
to
relinquish
properties levied upon to
satisfy a judgment debt will
not constitute contempt on
the ground of disobedience to
a lawful writ of possession.
This is because the writ of
possession is directed to the
sheriff, not to the parties who
refused
to
relinquish
properties.
If the pleading containing
derogatory,
offensive
or
malicious
statements
is
submitted in the same court
or judge in which the
proceedings are pending, it is
direct contempt because it is
equivalent to a misbehavior
committed in the presence of
or so near a court or judge as
to interrupt the administration
of justice.

Using Sec 4, Rule 71, the

manner upon which indirect
contempt proceeding was
commenced
is
in
contravention
with
the
categorical mandate of the
Rules. It was unverified & w/o
any supporting particulars &
documents. Strict compliance
w/ the procedural guidelines

556 - Judge Espaol v.

Formoso (2007)

557 Arriola v. Arriola

(2008)

the absence & w/o knowledge

of Gos counsel. Go filed a
Manifestation w/ Omnibus
Motion seeking to nullify the
Release Waiver & Quitclaim.
Go moved that Atty. Regalado
be made to explain her
unethical conduct for directly
negotiating with Go w/o the
knowledge of his counsel.
In the course of the (quieting
of title) proceedings, Judge
Espaol, issued an Order
stating that Sharcons, & its
counsel, Atty. Formoso, have
used a spurious certificate of
title & tax declaration when it
filed w/ the RTC its complaint
for quieting of title. Petitioner
declared respondents guilty
of direct contempt of court
and
ordered
their
confinement for 10 days in
the municipal jail.

RTC rendered a decision

ordering the partition of the
parcel of land among the 3
parties in equal shares.
Respondent sought the sale
of the land through public
auction
and
petitioners
agreed.
Auction had to be
rescheduled
because
petitioners refused to include
the house standing on the

is mandatory considering that

proceedings against person
alleged to be guilty of
contempt
are
commonly
treated as criminal in nature.

Use of falsified and forged

documents is a contumacious
act. However, it constitutes
indirect contempt not direct
contempt. Pursuant to Rule
71 Sec 3, such act is an
improper
conduct
w/c
degrades the administration
of justice. A person guilty of
contempt may be punished
only after a charge in writing
has
been
filed,
&
an
opportunity has been given to
the accused to be heard by
himself & counsel. It is not a
civil action, but a separate
proceeding of a criminal
nature in w/c the court
exercises limited jurisdiction.
RTC
erred
in
taking
jurisdiction. Respondent did
not comply w/ any of the
mandatory requirements of
Sec 4, R71. Respondent filed
a mere Urgent Manifestation
& Motion for Contempt of
Court, not a verified petition.
There
was
also
no
certification against forum
shopping & payment of

Cited Regalado v. Go.

558 - Rodriguez v.
Blancaflor (2011)

land.
Respondent filed an
Urgent
Manifestation
and
Motion for Contempt of Court
before the RTC, praying that
petitioners be declared in
contempt.
While an arson case was
pending, Tulali (prosecutor)
was implicated in a bribery
controversy. Tulali filed an ExParte
Manifestation
withdrawing his appearance
in the said case to prevent
any
suspicion
of
misdemeanor & collusion.
Judge
issued
an
order
summoning
Rodriguez
to
appear before him to inquire
about
his
possible
involvement in Tulalis filing
of the ex-parte manifestation
&
the
administrative
complaint. Judge Blancaflor
informed the petitioners that
he was proceeding against
them for direct contempt &
violation of their oath of office
on the basis of Tulalis ExParte Manifestation.

docket fees.
Exception: indirect contempt
proceedings initiated motu
proprio by order of or a formal
charge by the offended court

Petitioner is a member of
Kagimungan,
a
peasant
organization affiliated w/ KMP.
He claims the military tagged
KMP as an enemy of the State
under the Oplan Bantay Laya,
making its members targets

Rodriguez prays for the

issuance of a temporary
protection order. It must be
underscored that this interim
relief is only available before
final judgment. (See Sec 14
of the Rule on the Writ of

The power to punish a person

in contempt of court is
inherent in all courts to
preserve order in judicial
proceedings & to uphold the
orderly
administration
of
justice. However, judges are
enjoined to exercise the
power judiciously & sparingly,
w/ utmost restraint, & w/ the
end in view of utilizing the
same
for
correction
&
preservation of the dignity of
the
court,
&
not
for
retaliation/vindictiveness.
Such power, being drastic &
extraordinary in its nature,
should not be resorted to
unless necessary in the
interest of justice.

SPECIAL RULES
559 - In the matter of the
Petition for the Writ of
Amparo &Habeas Data in
favor of Noriel Roriguez v.
GMA (2011)

3 other issues discussed by

the Court (not included in this
reviewer):
Whether
former
President
Arroyo
should be dropped as
a respondent on the

of extrajudicial killings &

enforced
disappearances.
Rodriguez was abducted by
military men & was tortured
repeatedly when he refused
to confess to his membership
in the NPA. Upon release, he
filed a Petition for the Writ of
Amparo & Petition for the Writ
of Habeas Data w/ Prayers for
Protection Orders, Inspection
of Place, & Production of
Documents
&
Personal
Properties. Petition was filed
against former Pres. GMA, et
al. Writs were granted but CA
dropped
GMA
as
partyrespondent, as she may not
be sued in any case during
her tenure of office or actual
incumbency.
560 - Tapuz v. Judge Del
Rosario (2008)

561 Boac v. Cadapan

(2011)

Spouses
Sanson
filed
a
complaint before MCTC for
forcible entry against the
Tupazs. MCTC ruled in favor
of the Sansons. RTC reversed.
While in the CA, sheriff
served Notice to Vacate & for
Demolition to the Tupazes.
Tupazes came before the SC
praying for R65 Certiorari,
issuance of the writ of
Habeas Data & issuance of
the writ of Amparo.
Armed
men
abducted
Cadapan, Empeo & Merino.
Having
thereafter
heard
nothing from the 3, their

Amparo) Yano v. Sanchez:

[t]hese provisional reliefs are
intended to assist the court
before it arrives at a judicious
determination of the amparo
petition.
Being interim
reliefs, they can only be
granted
before
a
final
adjudication of the case is
made. In any case, it must be
underscored that the privilege
of the writ of amparo, once
granted, necessarily entails
the
protection
of
the
aggrieved party. Thus, since
we grant the privilege of the
writ, there is no need to issue
a temporary protection order
independently of the former.
The
order
restricting
respondents from going near
Rodriguez is subsumed under
the privilege of the writ.
A petition for a writ of habeas
data must show concrete
allegations
of
unjustified/unlawful violation
of the right to privacy related
to the right to life, liberty or
security.
The
necessity/justification for the
issuance of the writ, based on
the insufficiency of previous
efforts
made
to
secure
information, must also be
shown.
An amparo proceeding is not
criminal in nature nor does it
ascertain the criminal liability
of individuals or entities

basis
of
the
presidential immunity
from suit.
Whether the doctrine
of
command
responsibility can be
used in amparo and
habeas data cases.
Whether the rights to
life,
liberty
and
property of Rodriguez
were
violated
or
threatened
by
respondents in G.R.
No. 191805.

respective families searched

but the same yielded nothing.
During the pendency of the
MR of the Petition for Habeas
Corpus, Erlinda Cadapan &
Concepcion
Empeo
filed
before this Court a Petition for
Writ of Amparo With Prayers
for Inspection of Place and
Production of Documents. The
appellate court granted the
MR in the habeas corpus case
& ordered the immediate
release of Sherlyn, Karen &
Merino in the amparo case.

involved. Neither does it

partake
of
a
civil
or
administrative suit. Rather, it
is
a
remedial
measure
designed to direct specified
courses
of
action
to
government
agencies
to
safeguard the constitutional
right to life, liberty & security
of aggrieved individuals.
Contrary to the ruling of the
appellate court, there is no
need to file a motion for
execution for an amparo or
habeas
corpus
decision.
Since the right to life, liberty
& security of a person is at
stake, the proceedings should
not be delayed & execution of
any decision thereon must be
expedited as soon as possible
since any form of delay, even
for a day, may jeopardize the
very rights that these writs
seek to immediately protect.