Short answer. File in the municipal trial court of the city or municipality where the property stands. Rule 4, Section 1 of the Rules of Court directs that forcible entry and detainer actions be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city where the real property, or a portion of it, is situated.
What the law says
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Rule 4, Section 1 — Venue of real actions. Read the full provision →
The rule: where the property is, not where the parties live
Rule 4, Section 1 of the Rules of Court fixes both the level of court and the place for ejectment suits: "Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated." Two things follow. First, the case belongs to the first-level court — the municipal or metropolitan trial court — regardless of how valuable the property is or how much unpaid rent has piled up as damages. Second, the controlling location is the property's, not yours and not the tenant's. A landlord living in another city still files where the leased premises stand.
Why ejectment goes to the first-level court
An ejectment case against a tenant is technically an unlawful detainer action — the tenant's possession began lawfully under the lease and became unlawful when the right to stay ended, as when the lease expired or rent went unpaid and a demand to pay and vacate was ignored. Its sibling, forcible entry, covers possession taken by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth from the start. Both are summary actions that resolve only the right to physical possession, which is why the rules commit them to the municipal trial court under a fast, simplified procedure. Filing them in the Regional Trial Court is the classic mistake: the RTC is not the court the rule designates for these actions.
When the property straddles two localities
The rule anticipates boundary problems: venue lies where the property "or a portion thereof" is situated. If the leased land happens to straddle the boundary of two municipalities, the action may be brought in the municipal trial court of either, because a portion of the property sits in each. The same phrase resolves doubts when the parcel's address and its technical description point to different localities — what matters is where the land actually lies. When in doubt, the tax declaration and the title's technical description are the practical starting points for pinning down the correct city or municipality before filing.
Getting the location right matters
For ejectment, the place of filing is not a mere convenience rule that parties can waive by silence; the designation of the municipal trial court where the property lies is tied to that court's authority over these summary actions, so filing in the wrong place invites dismissal and costs you months. Before filing, check the demand letter, too — in an unpaid-rent case, a proper written demand to pay and vacate is what starts the tenant's possession being unlawful, and timing rules run from it. Ejectment is one of the most deadline-sensitive actions in Philippine practice, so if the lease, the demands, or the property's location raise any doubt, have counsel review the papers before you commence the case.