Short answer. Yes. Article 539 lets a possessor deprived through forcible entry move, within ten days of filing the complaint, for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to be restored to possession — and the court must decide that motion within thirty days. It is a fast interim remedy, not the final judgment.
What the law says
Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court.
Civil Code, Article 539 — Protection of Possession. Read the full provision →
What the law says
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry may within ten days from the filing of the complaint present a motion to secure from the competent court, in the action for forcible entry, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession.
Civil Code, Article 539 — Protection of Possession. Read the full provision →
The possessor's right to be restored
Article 539 begins from a broad principle: every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court. Possession is protected as a fact, independent of who ultimately owns the property. A person actually in possession cannot lawfully be thrown out by force or stealth; the answer to a dispute over possession is a court proceeding, not self-help, and the law gives the ousted possessor the means to be put back.
The fast interim remedy in forcible entry
For the sharpest case — being physically ousted — the article offers speed. A possessor deprived through forcible entry may within ten days from the filing of the complaint present a motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. This runs inside the forcible-entry action itself, and its purpose is to undo the ouster provisionally while the case is heard, so the wrongdoer does not simply enjoy the fruits of having seized the property first. The ten-day window is short, which is the point: the remedy rewards moving quickly.
A decision within thirty days
The remedy would be worthless if the motion itself languished, so the article puts a clock on the court as well: it shall decide the motion within thirty days from its filing. Between the ten-day filing window and the thirty-day decision period, the law is trying to compress the interval during which a forcibly ousted possessor is kept out. The design assumes the merits of a forcible-entry claim can be assessed quickly, because the question is possession in fact — who was actually in, and who used force — rather than the slower inquiry into who holds the better title.
Provisional restoration, not the final word
It helps to see this order for what it is. A preliminary mandatory injunction restores possession pending the outcome; it is interim relief, granted on a preliminary view, and it does not finally decide who is entitled to the property. The forcible-entry case still proceeds to judgment, and questions of ownership are settled, if at all, in the proper action for that. A possessor seeking this remedy should act within the window, come prepared to show he was in prior possession and was ousted by force, and treat the injunction as a way to hold the ground while the case runs, not as the end of it.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- HGL Development Corporation represented by its President, Henry G. Lim vs. Hon. Rafael O. Penuela and Semirara Coal Corporation, G.R. No. 181353, June 6, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Castro vs. Sps. Se and Dela Cruz, et al, G.R. No. 190122, January 10, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Leonardo David vs. Nelson and Danny Cordova, G.R. No. 152992, July 27, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Joel G. Nolasco vs. Purence Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 252715, October 12, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →