The Supreme Court ruled that in unlawful detainer cases, the one-year period to file suit is counted from the date of the last demand to vacate, not from the expiration of the lease contract. This means lessors have one year from the final notice to file an ejectment case in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), allowing them flexibility in dealing with defaulting lessees. The ruling clarifies the reckoning point for determining the timeliness of unlawful detainer actions, providing guidance for property owners and tenants alike.

Lease Expired, Occupation Continued: When Does the Clock Start Ticking for Unlawful Detainer?

This case revolves around a dispute between the Republic of the Philippines and the National Power Corporation (petitioners), represented by the Privatization Management Office, and Sunvar Realty Development Corporation (respondent) concerning a property in Makati City. Sunvar occupied the property under sublease agreements that expired on December 31, 2002, coinciding with the expiration of the main lease contract between the petitioners and Technology Resource Center Foundation, Inc. (TRCFI). Despite the expiration, Sunvar continued its occupation, prompting the petitioners to file an unlawful detainer case with the MeTC in 2009, seeking to recover possession and damages.

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the action for unlawful detainer was filed within the one-year prescriptive period, thus determining the jurisdiction of the MeTC. This hinges on when the one-year period should be reckoned: from the expiration of the lease contract in 2002 or from the final demand to vacate served on Sunvar in 2009. The RTC ruled that the one-year period should be counted from the expiration of the lease contract and thus, the case should have been filed with the RTC as an accion publiciana. The petitioners appealed, arguing that the one-year period should be counted from the date of the final demand to vacate.

The Supreme Court addressed the procedural issues first, dismissing Sunvar’s argument that a Rule 45 petition was an improper mode of review. The Court clarified that a Rule 45 petition is appropriate when only questions of law are raised. In this case, the issue of the RTC’s jurisdiction to entertain a certiorari petition against the interlocutory order of the MeTC in an unlawful detainer suit was a question of law. This is because it involved the interpretation of the Rules on Summary Procedure, making the Rule 45 petition the correct avenue for appeal.

The Court then addressed the propriety of the RTC taking cognizance of Sunvar’s Rule 65 Petition, which assailed the MeTC’s denial of Sunvar’s Motion to Dismiss. It emphasized that under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a certiorari petition against an interlocutory order issued by the court in a summary proceeding is a prohibited pleading. The Court underscored the RTC’s error in hearing the Rule 65 Petition on the merits despite the petitioners’ objection, pointing out that the Rules on Summary Procedure explicitly prohibit such recourse for unfavorable interlocutory orders of the MeTC.

The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from previous jurisprudence, such as Bayog v. Natino and Go v. Court of Appeals, where exceptions were made to the rule against certiorari petitions in summary proceedings due to extraordinary circumstances. In those cases, the parties faced grave injustice or a procedural void that necessitated the intervention of a higher court. However, in Sunvar’s case, no such compelling circumstances existed. Sunvar had the opportunity to file an answer and participate in the summary proceedings before the MeTC, negating the need for a certiorari petition.

The court emphasized that the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case is counted from the date of the last demand to vacate. The Court cited Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes, defining unlawful detainer as an action to recover possession of real property from someone illegally withholding it after the expiration or termination of their right to possess. The action must be brought within one year from the date of the last demand, and the core issue is the right to physical possession. This contrasts with accion publiciana, which is a plenary action brought in the RTC when dispossession has lasted for more than one year.

To establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must prove: initial possession by contract or tolerance, illegality of possession upon notice of termination, continued possession by the defendant, and institution of the complaint within one year from the last demand. The court found that the petitioners had correctly availed themselves of an action for unlawful detainer because, while Sunvar’s initial possession was legal through sublease agreements, its right expired in 2002. Despite this, Sunvar remained on the property until the final demand to vacate was made on February 3, 2009, making this date the starting point for the one-year period.

The Court also addressed the potential argument that an earlier notice to vacate in 2008 could have started the one-year period. However, it reasoned that the petitioners could be deemed to have waived their right of action and continued to tolerate Sunvar’s occupation until the final notice in 2009. Citing Leonin v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that the one-year period is reckoned from the date of the last demand, as the lessor has the right to waive their right of action based on previous demands. The filing of the complaint on July 23, 2009, was therefore within the one-year reglementary period.

The court acknowledged that Sunvar had been occupying the property since 2002 and emphasized the MeTC’s duty to resolve the matter swiftly, given that the case involves a prime government property. The Supreme Court, therefore, granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, reversed the RTC’s decision, and directed the MeTC to proceed with the summary proceedings for the unlawful detainer case.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was determining the correct reckoning point for the one-year period to file an unlawful detainer case: from the expiration of the lease contract or from the date of the last demand to vacate.
What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of real property from someone who is illegally withholding possession after their right to possess it has expired or been terminated. It is a summary proceeding, meaning it is designed to be quick and efficient.
What is an accion publiciana?	Accion publiciana is a plenary action to recover the right of possession of real property, typically filed in the Regional Trial Court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is a more extensive legal process than unlawful detainer.
Why did the RTC decision get reversed?	The RTC erroneously ruled that the one-year period should be counted from the expiration of the lease contract. The Supreme Court reversed this, clarifying that the period begins from the date of the last demand to vacate.
What does the phrase ‘last demand’ mean in this context?	The ‘last demand’ refers to the final notice given to the occupant to vacate the property. This notice triggers the one-year period within which the lessor must file an unlawful detainer case.
What are the requirements for an unlawful detainer case?	The requirements include initial possession by contract or tolerance, illegality of possession upon notice of termination, continued possession by the defendant, and the complaint being filed within one year from the last demand.
Can a certiorari petition be filed in summary proceedings?	Generally, no. The Rules on Summary Procedure prohibit certiorari petitions against interlocutory orders to expedite the proceedings. Exceptions are made only in extraordinary circumstances.
What was the significance of the 2008 and 2009 notices to vacate?	The Supreme Court considered the 2009 notice as the operative ‘last demand,’ potentially waiving the earlier 2008 notice. This gave the occupant another opportunity to comply, resetting the one-year period.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling provides clarity to lessors, stating when they should file an unlawful detainer case. This ensures the appropriate jurisdiction is observed and allows for recovery of property within the prescribed time frame.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of the last demand to vacate in unlawful detainer cases. The ruling clarifies that the one-year period for filing suit begins from the date of this final demand, giving lessors a clear timeline for taking legal action. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of summary proceedings, which is to provide an expeditious means of resolving disputes over the right to possess property.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Republic of the Philippines vs. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194880, June 20, 2012