Ley Devuélveme mi casa: the monitorio procedure, early restitution and what the law does not cover

Quick answer: Law 21,461, known as the Devuélveme mi casa law (Give Me Back My House), did three things. It created a monitorio procedure (an order for payment procedure) inside the tenancy law to collect unpaid rent, common expenses and utility bills, under which the tenant has ten consecutive days to pay or object and, if they do not, judgment is entered against them and the eviction order (lanzamiento) is issued within ten days of the ruling becoming final. It created a precautionary measure of early restitution for when the property has been destroyed or rendered unusable by the tenant's act or omission. And, in the article almost nobody associates with this law, it also sent the actions of precario (unauthorized occupation without any contract) and comodato precario (revocable loan for use) into that same procedure. What it does not do is serve against a takeover: if there was never a contract, that is usurpation (unlawful occupation of real property) and it goes through a different law.

That last point is the one that causes the most confusion, because the law's popular name promises something broader than what the law regulates. Devuélveme mi casa is, in origin, a tenancy law. Occupation by force has its own route and we explain it further below.

What Law 21,461 actually did

The map of the monitorio procedure

It helps to have at hand what each article says, because this procedure is played out on points of form and not on arguments about the merits.

How it works, stage by stage

The ten days are consecutive, not business days, and that difference decides dates. If you need to compute an exact deadline, the legal deadline calculator distinguishes between the two ways of counting.

The real numbers behind the procedure

The Judiciary published a statistical bulletin on the application of this law that allows us to stop arguing from impressions. Between July 2022 and December 2023, 21,162 urban tenancy cases were filed, and 68.6 percent of them came in through the monitorio procedure. The average time between the filing of the case and the eviction was 104 days. During 2024, around 5,247 claims were filed through this route.

That average of 104 days is less than half of what it took before the law, when recovering the property and collecting what was owed was measured in seven or eight months. But it is an average, and it contains within it the cases that nobody answered. Where there is an opposition, the number stops applying. Anyone who promises you an eviction in three weeks is selling you something that does not exist.

Where this procedure falls apart: the opposition

Because the court rules on the documents submitted and without a hearing, the quality of the claim is everything. A badly broken down debt, a poorly identified contract or utility bills that are not properly evidenced are the way in for an opposition. And if there is an opposition, the very speed advantage that was being sought has been lost.

The law requires the opposition to be reasoned, but it does not say how intensively the court must review it. The majority reading examines whether what is alleged has a plausible basis and rejects the merely formal opposition. A minority reading treats it as enough that the defendant opposes within the deadline and complies with the form. Before a court that takes the second reading, the monitorio procedure becomes an unavoidable preliminary step ahead of the real trial.

And it is not wise to count on the Supreme Court as a safety net. In the study of the case law practice of this procedure carried out by the Civil Law Academy of Universidad Diego Portales, of sixty-three cassation appeals filed, fifty-five were declared inadmissible, on the ground that the monitorio procedure is a demand for payment and not a full cognition procedure.

What happens after the opposition, which is the gap in the law

Article 18-H says that the court declares the procedure terminated and the earlier ruling is left without effect. What it does not say is how the matter continues. The practical consequence is that the landlord has to file a new claim, with fresh service and the time that entails, instead of continuing the same case file under the procedure of article 8 of Law 18,101, which would be the logical thing.

The gap became visible in the case law. In the same Universidad Diego Portales study, thirty-one Court of Appeals judgments simply failed to rule on which procedure applies once the opposition is upheld, and only two ruled expressly. That is why it is worth deciding from the very first filing whether the case can withstand an opposition, and not discovering it when there is no longer any procedure left.

Early restitution, which is the least used tool

The same law introduced a precautionary measure that allows the property to be recovered before the case ends. It does not apply in every case: it is designed for when the landlord sues for termination of the contract and restitution because the property was partially destroyed or rendered unusable as a result of the tenant's act or omission in caring for it.

That is why we insist so much on documenting everything from the very first moment: dated photographs of the condition at handover, photographs of the current condition, a technical report if the damage is structural. Without that, the measure is not requested, and the owner ends up waiting for the whole case while the property keeps deteriorating.

What the claim covers

The monitorio procedure is not limited to rent. It also reaches the common expenses and the utility bills the tenant was supposed to pay, plus interest and costs. In practice this matters a great deal, because in a flat the common expenses debt is usually as large as the rent debt, and it also creates a problem of its own with the community that the owner ends up inheriting.

What it does not cover is a claim against someone who was not sued. If the contract has a guarantor or joint and several co-debtor, the claim has to be directed against them as well from the outset, because adding them later means starting over.

The third thing this law did: precario

Article 18-K provides that the rules of Title III bis apply, so far as relevant, to comodato precario actions seeking restitution of the property and to the precario action under article 2195 of the Civil Code. And article 2 of the law deleted the reference to comodato precario in paragraph 6 of article 680 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was the rule that submitted it to the summary proceeding.

The result carries an irony. The monitorio procedure, created to collect rent, became in practice the procedure for precario: of the sixty-seven Supreme Court judgments analysed in the study already cited, forty-three were precario cases, twenty were tenancy cases and four were comodato precario cases. And since the summary proceeding disappeared, the precario case that is genuinely fought over ended up slower than before the reform. The full detail is in the guide on the precario proceeding.

This point is still open in the constitutional arena. In March 2025 the Constitutional Court unanimously rejected an application for a declaration of inapplicability of article 18-K, holding that the discussion of whether the deadlines run in consecutive or business days is a matter of mere legality. In December 2025 a new application was filed, this time because the monitorio procedure had been applied to an ordinary comodato with a two year term and not to a comodato precario.

What this law does not resolve: the takeover

If someone occupied your property without your consent and there was never a contract, we are not in tenancy matters and this law does not apply. That situation is dealt with in Law 21,633, published in November 2023, which amended the Criminal Code on usurpation, and we cover it in full in the guide on the law on usurpation.

Two things about that law matter more in practice than the penalties. The first is that the occupation is understood to be caught in the act for as long as the occupant remains on the property, which allows police action beyond the initial moment. The second is the precautionary eviction measure under article 157 ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows eviction to be sought at any stage of the proceedings, on proof of the certificate of title registration and of the occupation, without waiting for a conviction.

The rule that avoids the mistake. If there was ever a contract, even a verbal one that has expired, the route is civil. If there was never a contract but the owner tolerated the occupation, the route is precario. If entry was by force, the route is criminal. Confusing them does not just cause delay: it can end with the owner facing a complaint.

Before filing: what you should have ready

• The contract with all its extensions, or evidence of the relationship if it was verbal.
• The debt broken down by period and by item, with supporting documents for common expenses and utility bills. It is what decides whether there will be an opposition.
• The current certificate of title registration for the property.
• Dated photographs of the condition of the property, if you are going to request early restitution.
• The details of the guarantor or joint and several co-debtor, if the contract provides for one, so as to sue them from the outset.
• The communications in which you demanded payment, with dates.
• Certainty that you did not cut off the utilities. Doing so exposes the owner to a fine and hands the tenant a free argument.

Frequently asked questions

Does it work if the contract is verbal?

A verbal tenancy is valid, but the monitorio procedure rests on documentary evidence, so a verbal contract weakens this route considerably. It can be attempted with regular transfers and messages, and if there is an opposition the dispute continues through the declaratory route. It is one of the reasons why it is worth putting the tenancy in writing, even between people who know each other.

The tenant pays the debt on day ten. Is that the end of it?

If they pay the full amount claimed, plus interest and costs, the purpose of the monitorio procedure is fulfilled. If they pay only part of it, the procedure continues for the outstanding balance. What does not happen is that the payment wipes out other grounds for termination you may want to raise, which are a separate discussion.

Can I use this law if the contract has expired and the tenant owes nothing?

No. The monitorio procedure is for collecting unpaid rent and expenses. If there is no debt and what you want is to recover the property, the route is the notice of termination (desahucio), with considerably longer deadlines: four months from service, plus two months for each full year of tenancy, capped at twelve. They are set out in the guide on how to evict a tenant.

How long does it really take?

The Judiciary average is 104 days between filing and eviction, and after that comes the physical enforcement of that eviction, which adds time. That average is dominated by the cases with no opposition. If the tenant opposes and the opposition is found to be well-founded, a declaratory proceeding has to be started and the number stops working as a reference.

Are the ten days business days or consecutive days?

Consecutive. It is the exception to the general rule for civil deadlines, and it has been taken as far as the Constitutional Court, which has treated it as a question of legality for the trial judges to resolve. Miscounting those days is one of the most expensive mistakes in this procedure.

Someone took over a plot of land with no building on it. Does the law on usurpation apply?

Usurpation reaches the occupation of real property, and a plot with no building on it is real property. What is decisive in practice is proving registered title, which requires having the title in order, and the date of the occupation, and acting early, because the more the occupation consolidates the more complicated everything becomes, including any eventual argument over housing need.

Can I request early restitution just because I am not being paid?

The measure is provided for the case of destruction of the property or its becoming unusable through the tenant's act or omission, not for simple default in payment. For default, the tool is the monitorio procedure.

I bought a property at a judicial auction and it is occupied. Do I use this law?

It depends on who is occupying it. If it is the judgment debtor themselves, physical delivery is requested within the same enforcement proceeding and no new claim is needed. If it is a tenant, you have to check whether their contract is enforceable against you. The three scenarios are in the guide on the house bought at a judicial auction and occupied.

Can I sue the guarantor through the same route?

Yes, provided you include them in the claim from the outset and the contract makes them a joint and several co-debtor. What cannot be done is to add them halfway through the procedure, because the demand for payment is directed at whoever was sued.

How we work on this

We always start in the same place: determining whether or not there was a contractual relationship, because that decides whether the case is a tenancy case, a precario case or a criminal one. It is a simple question that decides everything, and it is where most people arrive already mistaken.

If it is a tenancy, we build the debt period by period and item by item, which is what keeps the monitorio procedure from collapsing through an opposition, and from the first filing we assess whether early restitution should be requested given the condition of the property. We also check whether there is a guarantor, so as to sue them from the outset and not later.

If it is an occupation without a contract, what is called for is to act quickly with the criminal complaint and with the eviction request under article 157 ter, proving registered title. There, delay works against the owner every single day.

We handle the litigation from our civil litigation practice, and when the title has problems the occupant could use as a defence, we review it first with a title study.

Send us the contract if there is one, the breakdown of what is owed and photographs of the condition of the property, and we will tell you which route applies, what can be requested immediately and within what realistic timeframe.