Short answer. Yes. Within ten days from perfection of the appeal to the Regional Trial Court, you may move for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore your possession if the court is satisfied the defendant's appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that your appeal is prima facie meritorious.

What the law says

Upon motion of the plaintiff, within ten days from the perfection of the appeal to the Regional Trial Court, the latter may issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the plaintiff in possession if the court is satisfied that the defendant's appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that the appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious.

Rule 70, Section 20 — Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of appeal. Read the full provision →

Relief during the appeal, not just at trial

Winning an ejectment case at the trial level does not automatically guarantee immediate, uninterrupted possession if the losing party appeals. This section provides a specific mechanism for a plaintiff to seek restoration to possession even while that appeal to the Regional Trial Court is pending, rather than leaving the plaintiff to simply wait out the appeal before enjoying the fruits of the judgment already won below, which could otherwise let a losing defendant remain in possession for the whole length of the appeal simply by filing one.

A ten-day window tied to perfection of the appeal

The plaintiff must move for this relief within ten days from the perfection of the appeal to the Regional Trial Court, which then has the power to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction restoring the plaintiff to possession if the motion is granted. Missing that ten-day window means this particular remedy is no longer available on that basis, underscoring how closely the summary character of ejectment proceedings tracks through into the appellate stage as well, even though the appeal itself is now before a different court.

The standard the court applies

The Regional Trial Court grants this relief if it is satisfied that the defendant's appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or, in a scenario where the plaintiff itself appealed some aspect of the case, that the plaintiff's appeal is prima facie meritorious — either finding can support restoring possession while the appeal plays out. Requiring one of these findings keeps the remedy from becoming automatic on every appeal; the court still has to be satisfied that the appeal lacks real merit, or is simply being used to delay, before it will restore possession ahead of the appeal's final resolution. A plaintiff seeking this relief should be prepared to point to specific indications of frivolousness or delay in the defendant's appeal, rather than simply asserting that the appeal is weak.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.