Text of the provision
Art. 539. 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. 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. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof.
(446a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Every possessor has a right to be respected in their possession, and if disturbed, to be protected or restored through the Rules of Court. A possessor ousted by forcible entry may seek a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction within ten days to be restored, which the court decides within thirty days.
Questions about this provision
- Can a tenant stay in the unit while appealing an ejectment order against them?
- How quickly must I act if someone forcibly takes possession of my property?
Related provisions
- Article 538 — Preference of Possessors.
- Article 540 — Possession in the Concept of Owner as Title.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Perlita Mabalo vs. Heirs of Roman Babuyo, represented by Virgilio L. Babuyo, G.R. No. 238468, July 6, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.