Dear PAO,
I filed an ejectment suit against the person occupying my property. It is now set for resolution. I attended all the hearings and I noticed that no one testified in court.

I am not familiar with court proceedings but my impression is that there should be hearings where someone would sit on the witness stand and then lawyers would ask him questions. Is it not required to have such hearings? Does it not violate our constitutional right to due process?
Ann

Dear Ann,
A full-blown trial is not required in an ejectment case because it is covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Under the said rule, the court is allowed to render judgment on the basis of the affidavits, pleadings and position papers submitted by the parties, and the court may hold hearings only when it is necessary to clarify certain material facts. It authorizes courts to admit affidavits and position papers in lieu of oral testimony of persons in court.

The Supreme Court implemented the said rule pursuant to Section 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129) with the main purpose of achieving an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. This is particularly needed in ejectment cases because it poses a threat to the public considering that involves an alleged illegal possession of real property. It is not unlikely that the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting, decide to take the law into his hands and use force or violence to recover the property. Because of this, the lawful possessor must be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly and carefully be avoided (Five Star Marketing Co. Inc. vs. Booc, G.R. No. 143331, October 5, 2007).

The adoption of this rule does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution. Applied to judicial proceedings, procedural due process as set forth in the leading case of El Banco-Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, (37 Phil. 94 [1918]), requires: (1) a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

Take note that the third requirement only requires an opportunity to be heard. Opportunity to be heard need not be by oral testimony in court. It can be through affidavits and position papers. Hence, there is no violation of the due process clause if the affidavits and position papers are admitted in lieu of testimonies in open court.

We hope that we were able to address your concerns. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated. Thank you for trusting us with your problem.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.