Court can determine party’s death in ejectment
In short, courts are allowed to pass upon such an issue merely to determine who is entitled to possession de facto.
Text size
Daily TribuneIn short, courts are allowed to pass upon such an issue merely to determine who is entitled to possession de facto.
Here is a very interesting case where a person instituted an ejectment case against his relatives who occupied a portion of the house he supposedly owned. One of the defenses raised was that the person was already dead. The defendants presented his supposed death certificate, despite the fact that the complainant was actively prosecuting the ejectment case in the flesh.
You can just imagine how spooky that might have been. Imagine, here was a person very much alive and vigorously arguing his case in court. On the other side, you have defendants saying that he was already dead, as in gone from this earth.
The issue of whether the death of a complainant can be looked into in an ejectment case for purposes of legal personality to file the action and entitlement to possession of the property was therefore brought all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Highest Court ruled in the affirmative.
“The instant case arose out of a complaint for unlawful detainer. As borne out from the pleadings filed before the Court, petitioners’ principal defense rests on the supposed lack of legal capacity of respondent to bring the ejectment suit due to the fact of his death. This ‘death’ is evidenced by the certificate of death in the name of Antonio V. Estrella, herein respondent.
“Further, they argue that since respondent is legally deceased, his heirs, including his wife Rosario, are the ones who have the power to authorize the use of the subject property. Here, Rosario has authorized petitioners to use the subject property for as long as they wish without the payment of rent. To properly resolve the contentions of petitioners, the Court must determine whether the fact of death of Antonio V. Estrella, as recorded in the certificate of death, may be controverted in the instant action for ejectment.
“The Court answers in the affirmative. The fact of death of the plaintiff may be controverted and passed upon in the proceedings of an action for ejectment. However, any finding as to such fact is merely provisional and is in no manner conclusive of such fact. The certificate of death is a public document. It is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it. In this case, the certificate of death of Antonio V. Estrella is prima facie evidence of the fact of death of the latter.
“Petitioners contend that since the certificate of death is prima facie evidence of the fact of death of respondent, it must be recognized by the courts until it is canceled in accordance with law. This was also the position of the RTC. Thus, in essence, both petitioners and the RTC are of the view that the certificate of death is conclusive as to the fact of death of Antonio V. Estrella until such certificate is cancelled.
“The Court answers in the negative. First, the very nature of an ejectment suit allows the courts to pass upon the issue of the plaintiff’s death in an ejectment suit. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation is instructive on the nature of an ejectment suit: An action for ejectment is a summary proceeding meant ‘to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property.’
“In this special civil action, title to the property is not involved. The only matter resolved is the question of ‘who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.’
“Ejectment suits are designed ‘to prevent breach of the peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his.’
“They discourage parties deprived of possession of property from taking the law into their own hands.
“Thus, ejectment proceedings are summary in nature to provide for a speedy settlement and action to recover possession, and quell social disturbances. An ejectment suit is summary in nature. Its goal is to provide for a speedy settlement and action to recover possession of the property subject of the ejectment suit.
“The nature and objective of an ejectment suit would be defeated if the court were to rule that a plaintiff must first secure the cancellation of his or her certificate of death prior to filing an ejectment suit to recover possession of property he or she alleges to be entitled to possess. Rather, in keeping with the summary nature of an ejectment suit, the more prudent course of action is to allow the courts to pass upon the issue of death, but solely for the purpose of determining who among the parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises subject of the ejectment suit.
“In short, courts are allowed to pass upon such issue merely to determine who is entitled to possession de facto. The court’s ruling as to the fact of the plaintiff’s death will then be provisional in nature, inasmuch as it is only for the purpose of determining entitlement to possession de facto over the property subject of the action.
“This treatment is akin to the manner by which the issue of ownership is treated in an ejectment suit. To recall, Rule 70, Section 16 of the Rules of Court provides that ‘[w]hen the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.’
“By reason of parity, the Court holds that the issue of the plaintiff’s death in an ejectment suit may also be passed upon provisionally by the courts. Such decision is not conclusive as to the actual fact of the plaintiff’s death, as recorded in the certificate of death, and will not prevent another action involving such fact of death.”
The facts and quoted portion of the redacted decision are from SC GR 236333 (20 April 2026).
