G.R. No. L-29328 and G.R. No. L-29589, June 30, 1969.
Case Parties: SY OH, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, as Presiding Judge, Branch I of City Court of Manila and PIVGETH INDUSTRIES & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents-appellees. (G.R. No. L-29328) LIM CHI, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, as Presiding Judge, Branch I of City Court of Manila and PIVGETH INDUSTRIES & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents-appellees. (G.R. No. L-29589)

FACTS

Petitioners Sy Oh and Lim Chi were actual occupants under verbal contracts of lease of the Arias Building owned by private respondent Pivgeth Industries & Development Corp. Ejectment suits were filed against them on July 21, 1967, in the City Court of Manila presided by respondent Judge Gregorio N. Garcia. The petitioners moved to dismiss the suits for lack of jurisdiction, alleging that the first notice or demand to vacate was sent to them as far back as April 27, 1964. Respondent Judge denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the final letters of demand were sent to Sy Oh on September 30, 1966, and to Lim Chi on September 29, 1966, and thus the suits were filed within the one-year period. Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which were denied, sustaining the jurisdiction of respondent Judge Garcia. Hence, these appeals were taken to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

In ejectment suits, should the one-year period be counted from the first or the last letter of demand sent to the lessee?

RULING

The one-year period in ejectment suits is to be counted from the last letter of demand. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, holding that the respondent city court had jurisdiction because the suits were filed within one year from the final demands sent in September 1966. This ruling is supported by prior jurisprudence, including Racaza v. Susana Realty, Inc. and Calubayan v. Pascual, which established the principle that the period is reckoned from the last demand, on the theory that the lessor may waive the action based on an earlier demand and allow the lessee to remain. The Court emphasized that adhering to this principle upholds the summary character of unlawful detainer actions and prevents the use of technicalities to defeat their purpose. The decisions of Judges Ricardo C. Puno (May 10, 1968) and Guillermo S. Santos (July 6, 1968) were affirmed. Costs were awarded against petitioners Sy Oh and Lim Chi.