Below is an extensive discussion of what is generally referred to as a “Motion to Review” (more accurately, an appeal or similar post-judgment remedy) in Ejectment Cases under Philippine law. While “Motion to Review” is not a formal term employed by the Rules of Court, it often colloquially refers to the process of seeking judicial reconsideration or appellate review of a lower court’s decision in forcible entry or unlawful detainer actions. This write-up aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the entire process, key rules, timelines, and jurisprudential guidelines.

1. Overview of Ejectment Cases in the Philippines

1.1. Nature of Ejectment (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer)

In the Philippines, ejectment cases are categorized into:

Forcible Entry (detentacion) – where a person is deprived of physical possession of real property by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
Unlawful Detainer (desahucio) – where a possessor (e.g., a lessee or occupant) initially lawfully possesses a property but continues to occupy it after the expiration or termination of the right to possess.

Both types of actions are governed by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The primary issue in these suits is the right to physical or material possession (possession de facto), not ownership.

1.2. Summary Nature

Ejectment cases are summary in nature, meaning:

They are designed for swift resolution to protect against continued dispossession or unlawful withholding of possession.
Technicalities are minimized, and the timeline is shorter compared to ordinary civil actions.

2. Court Jurisdiction and Initial Proceedings

2.1. Where the Case is Filed

Ejectment suits are filed before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC), depending on the territorial jurisdiction and location of the property.

2.2. Pleadings and Periods

Under Rule 70 (and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure), stricter requirements apply to pleadings and motions:

The complaint must specifically state the facts of forcible entry or unlawful detainer and include a certification of non-forum shopping.
Only certain motions are allowed (e.g., motion to dismiss on specific grounds is generally prohibited except for lack of jurisdiction or failure to comply with barangay conciliation if required).

2.3. Preliminary Conference and Judgment

The court usually sets a preliminary conference (or mediation) soon after the defendant’s answer is filed. The case proceeds quickly to judgment with minimal delay.

3. Remedies After Judgment in Ejectment Cases

Because ejectment judgments are rendered by first-level courts, the parties who lose typically seek recourse through:

Motion for Reconsideration or Motion for New Trial at the first-level court (although rarely used because of the summary nature and time constraints).
Appeal (Petition for Review or Notice of Appeal) to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals, if needed and under proper grounds (from an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction).
Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) to the Supreme Court, if meritorious questions of law remain.

In practice, many litigants colloquially call any pleading seeking a higher court’s review a “Motion to Review.” Formally, however, the Rules of Court provide structured remedies as discussed below.

4. Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial in the First-Level Court

4.1. Purpose and Grounds

After the Metropolitan Trial Court / Municipal Trial Court issues an ejectment judgment, an aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration (MR) or motion for new trial on limited grounds, such as:

Errors of law or fact in the judgment.
Newly discovered evidence.
Irregularities in the proceedings.

4.2. Timelines

A motion for reconsideration or new trial must be filed within 15 days from receipt of the judgment.
Filing an MR or motion for new trial tolls (pauses) the running of the period to appeal.

4.3. Effect on Execution

Judgments in ejectment are immediately executory, but execution may be stayed by:

Perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period, AND
Filing a supersedeas bond (in unlawful detainer cases where back rentals or compensation for use of property are assessed), AND
Depositing the accruing rentals or compensation in court periodically.

A timely and proper motion for reconsideration can delay finality of judgment, but typically, the rules on depositing rentals or a bond to stay execution still apply.

5. Appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

5.1. Nature of the Remedy

An appeal from the judgment of the first-level court in an ejectment case is often referred to colloquially as a “motion to review,” but under procedural rules, it is properly called:

Appeal by Notice of Appeal or
Petition for Review (depending on the local practice or specific instructions of the rules in summary procedures).

This appeal is taken to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercising jurisdiction over the same area.

5.2. How to Appeal

The losing party files a notice of appeal (or petition for review, if allowed by local A.M. circulars for summary procedure) with the court of origin within 15 days from receipt of the judgment or from the denial of a motion for reconsideration.
The appeal fee must be paid, and all procedural requirements (e.g., proof of service) complied with.

5.3. RTC’s Scope of Review

The RTC will review the case based on the entire record transmitted by the lower court.
Generally, the RTC does not conduct a new trial (no new evidence). The RTC determines whether the MTC committed errors of fact or law based on the record.

5.4. Immediate Execution Pending Appeal

Immediate execution is a hallmark of ejectment cases. Even if a notice of appeal is filed, the prevailing party can move for execution unless the appellant:

Files a supersedeas bond (where applicable), and
Deposits with the trial court all accrued rentals, damages, and costs due, and continues depositing current rentals as they fall due.

Failure to comply with these requirements allows the immediate execution of the MTC’s judgment despite the pending appeal.

6. Further Review: Court of Appeals and Supreme Court

6.1. Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals

After the RTC decides the appeal, the aggrieved party may further elevate the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

This must be filed within 15 days from receipt of the RTC’s decision.
Only questions of law or grave errors of fact are typically entertained at this stage, given the limited scope of review.

6.2. Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) to the Supreme Court

Ultimately, from an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals (or in exceptional situations directly from the RTC if allowed), a party may seek a final review with the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45), raising only pure questions of law.

7. Special Civil Actions (Rule 65) as an Extraordinary Remedy

In rare instances where grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional errors occur, the aggrieved party may file a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, or Mandamus under Rule 65. However:

Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
The petition must show that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, or the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

8. Key Points and Practical Considerations

15-Day Period is Crucial
- Whether filing an MR or appealing, the 15-day period to challenge the judgment is strictly applied.
Execution is the General Rule
- In ejectment suits, the judgment can be enforced immediately unless the losing party fully complies with the supersedeas bond and monthly deposit requirements (particularly for unlawful detainer).
Focus is on Possession
- Ownership questions, if complicated, are typically referred to the proper court in a separate action (accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria). The ejectment court may provisionally pass on ownership only to resolve the question of possession.
Limited Motions Allowed
- Because it is a summary proceeding, the Rules disallow certain motions (e.g., motion to dismiss on most grounds, extension of time to file pleadings, etc.). A “motion to review” as such is not explicitly provided for; instead, the recognized procedural remedies (MR, new trial, appeal) are used.
One Level of Review on Facts
- Fact-finding is done primarily by the MeTC/MTC/MCTC. The RTC can review the factual findings on appeal, but typically, the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court will focus on legal issues unless there are extraordinary circumstances.
Compliance with Supersedeas Bond
- For the defendant-appellant to remain in possession during appeal (in unlawful detainer), they must post a bond and deposit the rents due. Failure to comply results in the immediate issuance of a writ of execution.
No Dilatory Tactics
- Courts frown upon tactics meant to delay ejectment, such as repeated motions for reconsideration or failure to comply with bond requirements. The summary nature of these cases is intended to prevent protracted litigation over possession.

9. Illustrative Jurisprudence

Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 338 SCRA 56 (2000) – Emphasizes the requirement to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal.
Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132424 (2000) – Reiterates that ejectment is summary; parties cannot delay by invoking ownership issues extensively.
Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas, G.R. No. 199888 (2016) – Explains the interplay between ejectment (possession de facto) and separate actions for ownership.

(Note: The above are examples; there are many other cases clarifying procedural rules and ensuring swift resolution of ejectment suits.)

10. Step-by-Step Summary

Filing of Ejectment Complaint (MTC/MeTC)
- Summons issued, Answer filed, preliminary conference, summary hearing.
Judgment by MTC/MeTC
- Usually within a shorter period compared to ordinary actions.
Post-Judgment Motions (Optional)
- Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial within 15 days. This can toll the period to appeal.
Appeal to RTC
- By Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review. Appellant must file a supersedeas bond and deposit rentals (unlawful detainer) to prevent immediate execution.
RTC Decision
- RTC reviews the factual and legal findings of the lower court. Renders its own decision/ resolution.
Petition for Review to Court of Appeals
- If the RTC’s ruling is adverse, the aggrieved party may raise questions of fact or law (primarily issues of law or grave error) to the CA within 15 days.
Final Review by Supreme Court (Rule 45)
- Purely on questions of law, filed within 15 days from CA decision or final orders in exceptional cases.
Execution of Judgment
- Immediate as a rule. Stayed only by strict compliance with requirements (bond, deposit of rentals, timely appeal).

11. Conclusion

In the Philippine context, while the term “Motion to Review” is not strictly a procedural term under the Rules of Court, parties in ejectment cases (forcible entry/unlawful detainer) commonly seek post-judgment relief by way of:

Motion for Reconsideration or Motion for New Trial before the first-level court, or
Appeal (Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review) to the Regional Trial Court,
Further petitions to higher courts, if warranted.

Crucially, ejectment judgments are immediately executory unless the proper bond is posted and rent deposits are made (in unlawful detainer cases), reflecting the summary and protective nature of these proceedings. Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of speedy disposition in ejectment to avoid prolonged and unjust deprivation of possession.

When studying or litigating ejectment actions in the Philippines, keeping track of timelines, bond requirements, and the limited scope of post-judgment motions is of paramount importance. The synergy of the rules and jurisprudence aims to balance the swift protection of possessory rights with the fundamental right to appellate review—within the strict boundaries set by procedural law.