G.R. No. L-21875 September 27, 1966
MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JOSEFINA SEGARRA VDA. DE LAUREANO, ET AL., defendants. JOSEFINA SEGARRA VDA. DE LAUREANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On September 2, 1949, plaintiffs-appellees (lessors), represented by their attorney-in-fact, entered into a 10-year lease contract with defendant-appellant Josefina Segarra Vda. de Laureano (lessee) for a parcel of land in Manila. The contract provided that improvements built by the lessee would belong to the lessor upon termination. The contract was later amended to allow the lessee to assign her leasehold rights to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) as security for a loan. On November 12, 1953, the lessee conveyed her leasehold rights and improvements to E. S. Baltao & Co., which took possession and paid rentals until November 1954. This conveyance was not approved by the RFC or the lessors.
On March 11, 1955, the lessors demanded that the lessee pay unpaid rentals or vacate the premises. Similar demands were made on RFC and E. S. Baltao & Co. in 1955 and 1956. The lessors filed an action for rescission in the Court of First Instance (CFI) on April 29, 1955, but it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. They then filed an unlawful detainer case in the Municipal Court on July 30, 1955, which was eventually dismissed upon the lessors’ motion. A new unlawful detainer case was filed in the Municipal Court on August 2, 1957, but it was dismissed on October 31, 1957, for lack of jurisdiction, as it was filed more than one year from the March 11, 1955 demand.
On December 27, 1957, the lessors’ counsel sent a letter to the lessee demanding the immediate formal surrender of the land and payment of back rentals, referencing an alleged agreement between counsels for voluntary surrender. On January 28, 1958, the lessors filed the present action for recovery of possession in the CFI. The lessee challenged the CFI’s jurisdiction, arguing the action, filed within one year from the December 27, 1957 demand, was for unlawful detainer within the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction. The CFI ruled it had jurisdiction, declaring the December 1957 letter a mere reiteration of the March 1955 demand, and ordered the lessee to vacate and pay unpaid rentals. The lessee appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession filed on January 28, 1958, or whether it was an action for unlawful detainer falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court.

RULING

The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The letter of December 27, 1957, was not a new demand that would start a new period for filing an unlawful detainer case. It was a reminder to comply with an alleged agreement for voluntary surrender of the premises, made after the dismissal of the prior unlawful detainer case. Since the initial demand was made on March 11, 1955, and the lessors persistently pursued court actions and made demands on other parties thereafter, the lessee’s possession remained unlawful from that time. The lessors’ inaction from October 31 to December 27, 1957, was due to their expectation of voluntary surrender based on the alleged agreement, not a waiver of their rights or tolerance legalizing the possession. Therefore, the action filed on January 28, 1958, was an accion publiciana for recovery of possession, properly within the CFI’s jurisdiction.