G.R. No. L-21470 June 23, 1965
CONSUELO VDA. DE PRIETO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PACIENCIA REYES and her husband “John Doe”, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellee Consuelo Vda. de Prieto, the owner of Lot No. 14, Block 18, of the New Legarda Estate in Manila, filed an action for illegal detainer (ejectment) against defendant-appellant Paciencia Reyes in the Municipal Court of Manila on April 7, 1952. Prieto alleged that Reyes, through stealth, strategy, and misrepresentation and without the owner’s knowledge or consent, built a shack (“barong-barong”) on the lot. Despite repeated oral and written demands to vacate, Reyes refused. Reyes moved to dismiss, challenging the court’s jurisdiction, arguing the action was not filed within one year from the alleged unlawful deprivation of possession and that no cause of action was stated. The motion was denied. Reyes answered, claiming she was a bona fide occupant since December 3, 1948, having purchased the house and the right of occupation as a tenant from one Dominador Merced. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of Prieto, ordering Reyes to vacate and pay a reasonable rental of P5.00 a month from February 8, 1952. Reyes appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI, after trial, affirmed the Municipal Court’s decision, finding that Prieto learned of the house’s existence only in January 1952 and made demands to vacate in February 1952; that Reyes purchased the house (not the land) on December 3, 1949, from Dominador Merced (who bought it from Pedro Sta. Ana) and lived there since without the owner’s knowledge or consent; and that Reyes failed to pay any rentals for the land. Reyes appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as only questions of law were involved.

ISSUE

Whether the trial courts (Municipal Court and Court of First Instance) lacked jurisdiction over the illegal detainer suit because it was filed more than one year after Reyes allegedly entered the property in December 1948, thereby not complying with the one-year prescriptive period for such actions under Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, holding that the trial courts had jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the one-year period for filing an illegal detainer action should be counted from the date of the plaintiff’s demand to vacate, not from the date of the defendant’s clandestine entry. The Court distinguished between entry by force or violence and entry by stealth, as in this case. The lawful owner cannot be expected to enforce his right against an illegal occupant before learning of the intrusion. To deprive the owner of the summary action under Rule 70 simply because the stealthy intruder concealed the trespass for over a year would encourage such unlawful clandestine usurpations. Furthermore, citing jurisprudence, the Court held that possession by tolerance becomes illegal only upon demand to vacate. Since the first demand was made in February 1952 and the complaint was filed in April 1952, the action was well within the one-year prescriptive period. Therefore, the plea of lack of jurisdiction was without merit. Costs were imposed on defendant-appellant Reyes.