Short answer. Generally, no. Ejectment follows summary procedure, and the Rules flatly prohibit the classic delaying pleadings: a motion to dismiss is not allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or non-compliance with the required conciliation, and dilatory motions for postponement are banned outright.
What the law says
Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with section 12
Rule 70, Section 13 — Prohibited pleadings and motions. Read the full provision →
Why ejectment has a banned list
Ejectment exists to answer one urgent question — who has the better right to physical possession right now — and its value collapses if the case can be stalled for years like ordinary litigation. So the Rules attack delay at the source: the provision opens with a list of petitions, motions, or pleadings that shall not be allowed in an ejectment case at all. A defendant cannot use the standard procedural toolkit to buy time, because the toolkit itself has been confiscated. When a prohibited motion is filed anyway, the plaintiff's response is simple: point the court to the list.
The motion to dismiss: two narrow survivors
A motion to dismiss the complaint is prohibited except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with section 12 of the same Rule — the provision on referral for conciliation. Both exceptions go to whether the court should be hearing the case at all, not to the merits. Everything else a defendant might dress up as a motion to dismiss — improper venue, a supposed defect in the complaint, a claimed ownership dispute — must instead be raised in the answer and resolved with the case, not ahead of it.
What else is off the table
The list is long and deliberate: no motion for a bill of particulars; no motion for new trial or reconsideration of a judgment, or reopening of trial; no petition for relief from judgment; no motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; no memoranda; no petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against interlocutory orders; no motion to declare the defendant in default; no dilatory motions for postponement; no reply; no third-party complaints; no interventions. Notice the pattern — nearly every entry is a device whose common use is to add months to a case.
What this means for each side
For the plaintiff: vigilance, not passivity. Courts occasionally entertain prohibited motions through oversight, so a prompt opposition identifying the pleading as prohibited keeps the case on its summary track. For the defendant: the ban is not a denial of your defenses — it is a scheduling rule. Every defense you have goes into the answer, filed on time, because the answer is effectively your one complete opportunity to be heard. A defendant with a genuine jurisdictional or conciliation objection can still raise it; a defendant hoping to make the case die of old age will find the Rules were written against exactly that.