Technical knockout

Ejectment cases involve the simple issue of who is entitled to possession de facto or physical possession of a real property. They are supposed to be summary in nature. But sometimes, due to technical errors, the case may drag on for as long as 15 or even 20 years. Like what happened in this case of the Rivera family who owned a parcel of registered land located in the heart of a bustling city down south.

The said land was being leased to the couple Allan and Betty, for the sum of P200 as monthly rental. The couple were personally operating a sari-sari store, carinderia and snack center on said land. As early as 1979, the Riveras already served oral notice to Allan and Betty to vacate the premises because they would erect a commercial building thereon. But according to them, instead of heeding the notice, Allan and Betty even made an expansion of their house, put additional constructions for additional spaces which they subleased without their knowledge and consent. The following year 1980, after previous unheeded notices, the Riveras already sent a written demand to vacate the land but the couple still refused.

After that written demand, the Riveras did not take any action until three years later when they again sent another written notice to Allan and Betty on February 20, 1983. But the couple still failed to vacate. Finally, on December 6, 1983, the Riveras filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Damages and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In their complaint, they alleged that they were the registered owners of the lot, subject of the case, and thus entitled to possession thereof; that Allan and Betty were then lessees, paying rent on a month-to-month basis, and that despite repeated demands to vacate the land, Allan and Betty refused to leave the premises.

Allan and Betty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint mainly because they contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. They argued that this is a clear case of unlawful detainer or ejectment and since it was filed before the lapse of one year (December 6, 1983) from the date of demand (February 20, 1983), the Court that has jurisdiction is the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and not the RTC. Were they correct?

Yes. While the RTC ruled that it has jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals affirmed said ruling the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. According to the Supreme Court, although entitled "For Recovery of Possession, Damages With Preliminary Mandatory Injunction", it is evident from the allegations of the complaint filed by the Riveras that the case was actually for unlawful detainer. A lease on a month-to-month basis is deemed to expire at the end of the month upon notice to vacate addressed by the lessor to the lessee. The refusal of the lessee to leave the premises gives rise to an action for unlawful detainer.

As the action was for unlawful detainer, the question is whether it was brought within one year after the unlawful withholding of the possession. If so, then the MTC and not the RTC has jurisdiction. In case several demands to vacate were made, like in this case, the period is reckoned from the date of the last demand. The last demand in this case was February 20, 1983. Since the complaint was filed on December 3, 1983, which is within one year from February 20, 1983, it is clear that the case should have been brought in the MTC. The RTC would have jurisdiction if the period of deprivation of the possession by the lessee last for more than a year (Labastida et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. 110174, March 20, 1998).

This decision of the Supreme Court was promulgated on March 20, 1998. So after about 15 years of litigation, the Riveras will have to start all over again simply because of a technicality. Who knows how long the other case will take again.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]