G.R. No. 224137 , April 3, 2019
LEONORA RIVERA-AVANTE, Petitioner, vs. MILAGROS RIVERA AND THEIR HEIRS WITH THE LATE ALEJANDRO RIVERA, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE DERIVING CLAIM OR RIGHTS FROM THEM, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leonora Rivera-Avante is the registered owner of a house and lot in Paco, Manila. She allowed her sister-in-law, respondent Milagros Rivera (wife of her deceased brother Alejandro), and their heirs to stay in the property out of compassion. In 2005, needing to utilize the property, petitioner demanded that respondents vacate. A formal demand letter was sent on May 22, 2006, which respondents ignored. A subsequent demand letter was sent on September 3, 2007, asking for vacation and payment of reasonable rent. As respondents refused, petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on March 12, 2008. The MeTC ruled in petitioner’s favor, ordering respondents to vacate and pay rentals.
Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MeTC. The RTC dismissed the unlawful detainer case, ruling it was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period from the first demand (May 22, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding that the September 2007 letter was a mere reminder that did not restart the one-year period. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the one-year period to file an unlawful detainer suit is reckoned from the first demand letter dated May 22, 2006, and not from the subsequent demand letter dated September 3, 2007.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA and RTC rulings. The Court held that the determinative issue was the timeliness of the unlawful detainer filing. An action for unlawful detainer must be filed within one year from the date of last demand to vacate. The Court explained that the one-year period is counted from the date of the first demand that is valid and sufficient, which in this case was the letter of May 22, 2006. The subsequent letter of September 3, 2007, was correctly characterized by the lower courts as a mere reminder or reiteration of the original demand. A reiteration does not operate to renew the one-year period or create a new cause of action; it merely restates the original demand. Since the complaint was filed on March 12, 2008—more than one year from May 22, 2006—the action was time-barred. The proper remedy for recovery of possession after the lapse of one year is an accion publiciana filed with the proper RTC. The Court also noted a procedural lapse, as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was filed out of time, rendering the CA decision final. However, the Court clarified that petitioner is not without recourse, as she may still file the appropriate action for recovery of possession considering the dispossession has lasted for more than one year.