In the Philippines, property owners seeking to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent must adhere strictly to procedural requirements. The Supreme Court clarified in this case that the one-year prescriptive period to file an unlawful detainer case begins from the date of the last demand to pay and vacate. This ruling emphasizes the importance of proper and timely demand letters in eviction cases, safeguarding the rights of both landlords and tenants. The court also reiterated that Presidential Decree No. 1517, protecting tenants in urban land reform areas, only applies if the property is officially declared as such, a fact that must be proven.

Eviction Showdown: When Does the Clock Start Ticking?

This case revolves around a dispute over a property in Mandaluyong City. The late Gabriel Esteban, later substituted by his son Mark Anthony, had allowed the Spouses Marcelo to reside on his property in the 1970s for a monthly rental fee. By 2001, the Spouses Marcelo stopped paying rent. Esteban sent a demand letter on October 31, 2005, requiring them to settle their arrears and vacate the premises. When they failed to comply, Esteban filed an unlawful detainer case on December 6, 2005. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the case was filed within the one-year prescriptive period for unlawful detainer, and whether the tenants were protected by urban land reform laws.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) initially ruled in favor of Esteban, ordering the Spouses Marcelo to vacate the property and pay back rentals. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these rulings, stating that more than a year had passed between the dispossession (when rent payments stopped) and the filing of the complaint, thus the MeTC lacked jurisdiction. The CA also claimed the spouses were protected by P.D. 1517 and R.A. 7279. The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s findings, ultimately siding with Esteban’s successor, Mark Anthony.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case should be counted from the date of the last demand to pay and vacate. This is consistent with established jurisprudence, as stated in Canaynay v. Sarmiento:

“Mere failure to pay rents does not ipso facto make unlawful tenant’s possession of the premises. It is the owner’s demand for tenant to vacate the premises, when the tenant has failed to pay the rents on time, and tenant’s refusal or failure to vacate, which make unlawful withholding of possession.”

The Court has consistently reiterated this rule, clarifying that the unlawful detainer action arises from the refusal to vacate after a demand has been made. It’s not merely about the failure to pay rent. This distinction is crucial because it defines the point at which the tenant’s possession becomes unlawful, triggering the right to file an ejectment suit.

The Court also addressed the CA’s ruling regarding Presidential Decree No. 1517, which protects legitimate tenants in urban land reform areas. The Supreme Court found that P.D. 1517 did not apply to the Spouses Marcelo. For P.D. 1517 to apply, several conditions must be met. These conditions include being a legitimate tenant for ten years or more, having built their homes on the disputed property, and the property being located in an area declared as both an Area for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zone.

In this case, the spouses did not build their dwelling on the land; rather, Esteban’s sister constructed the foundry shop in the 1960s, and the respondents only leased the property in the 1970s. Moreover, there was no showing that the subject land had been officially declared as an area for priority development and urban land reform zone. This underscored the importance of proving that the property falls under the specific coverage of P.D. 1517 to avail of its protections.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the CA improperly considered Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act), as the respondents-spouses never raised this issue during the trial. The Court has long held that issues not raised before the lower courts cannot be raised on appeal. This is based on the principle of due process, ensuring that parties have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments on all relevant issues.

Finally, the Court addressed the respondents-spouses’ argument that the petition was irregular because not all co-owners were impleaded. Citing Article 487 of the Civil Code, the Court affirmed that any one of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment. This principle allows for a more efficient resolution of property disputes, as it does not require the participation of all co-owners in the litigation.

The Court referenced the case of Rey Castigador Catedrilla v. Mario and Margie Lauron to support this point, reiterating that while all co-owners are real parties in interest, any one of them can file a suit to recover co-owned properties. Only the co-owner who files the suit becomes an indispensable party, while the others are neither indispensable nor necessary parties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining the correct reckoning point for the one-year prescriptive period in unlawful detainer cases, specifically whether it should be counted from the first instance of non-payment or the last demand to pay and vacate.
When does the one-year period to file an unlawful detainer case begin?	The one-year period begins from the date of the last demand to pay and vacate, not from the initial failure to pay rent. This is because the lessor can waive their right to ejectment until a formal demand is made.
What is required for P.D. 1517 to apply?	For P.D. 1517 to apply, the tenant must have resided on the land for ten years or more, built their home on the land, and the property must be in an area declared as both an Area for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zone.
Can a court consider issues not raised in the lower courts?	Generally, no. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be considered by a reviewing court, as it violates due process.
Can one co-owner file an ejectment suit?	Yes, Article 487 of the Civil Code expressly allows any one of the co-owners to bring an action for ejectment.
What is the difference between accion interdictal and accion publiciana?	Accion interdictal is a summary action for forcible entry and detainer filed within one year to recover physical possession. Accion publiciana is a plenary action filed in the RTC to recover the right to possess.
What is the significance of a demand letter in unlawful detainer cases?	A demand letter is crucial as it formally notifies the tenant of their obligation to pay rent and vacate the premises. The tenant’s refusal to comply after this demand is what makes their possession unlawful.
What was the ruling on the substitution of parties in this case?	The Court ruled that the failure to substitute a deceased party is not a sufficient ground to nullify a trial court’s decision.

This case serves as a clear reminder of the procedural requirements in unlawful detainer cases. Landlords must ensure that their demand letters are properly served and that the case is filed within one year from the last demand. Tenants, on the other hand, should be aware of their rights and the conditions under which they can be protected by urban land reform laws.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MARK ANTHONY ESTEBAN VS. SPOUSES RODRIGO C. MARCELO, G.R. No. 197725, July 31, 2013