View full case

LEONORA RIVERA-AVANTE v. MILAGROS RIVERA

FACTS:

The petitioner is the registered owner of a house and lot in Paco, Manila. The respondent, Milagros Rivera, is the sister-in-law of the petitioner. In 2005, the petitioner and her husband demanded that the respondents vacate the premises, as they needed to utilize the property and planned to distribute it to their children. The respondents refused and filed a case challenging the petitioner's ownership of the property, alleging fraud and falsification. Despite demand letters sent by the petitioner, the respondents remained in possession of the property. The petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, which rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. The MeTC ordered the respondents to vacate the premises and pay rent. The respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which set aside the MeTC decision on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the one-year reglementary period. The RTC held that the petitioner should have filed an accion publiciana instead. The petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision. The petitioner now seeks the reversal of the CA decision through a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the one-year prescriptive period for filing an unlawful detainer case should be reckoned from the date of the initial demand letter or the date of the latest demand letter.

  2. Whether the September 3, 2007 demand letter of the petitioner is a mere reminder of the original demand made on May 22, 2006.

  3. Whether the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the prescribed period.

  4. Whether the belated filing of the Motion for Reconsideration foreclosed petitioner's right to appeal.

RULING:

  1. The one-year prescriptive period for filing an unlawful detainer case should be reckoned from the date of the original demand letter. Subsequent demands that are merely reminders or reiterations of the original demand do not operate to renew the one-year period. Therefore, the letter of September 3, 2007, which is a mere reiteration of the original demand, does not operate to renew the one-year period from the date of the original demand made on May 22, 2006.

  2. Both the RTC and the CA held that the September 3, 2007 demand letter of the petitioner is a mere reiteration or reminder of the original demand made on May 22, 2006. This finding of fact by the lower courts, which was adopted and affirmed by the CA, is deemed conclusive and binding. The September 3, 2007 demand letter does not operate to renew the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case.

  3. The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was filed late.

  4. The belated filing of the Motion for Reconsideration foreclosed petitioner's right to appeal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property, independent of any claim of ownership.

  • When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

  • Subsequent demands that are mere reminders or reiterations of the original demand do not operate to renew the one-year period within which to commence an ejectment suit.

  • The reckoning point of one year for filing an unlawful detainer case is from the date of the original demand, unless the subsequent demands are not mere reminders or reiterations of the original demand.

  • The right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules. Failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law renders the judgment final and executory.

  • A motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution should be filed within fifteen days from notice, and the fifteen-day reglementary period is non-extendible.

  • A motion for reconsideration must be filed within the period to appeal. When filed beyond such period, the motion for reconsideration ipso facto forecloses the right to appeal.

  • The relaxation of the application of procedural rules in exceptional cases does not apply to erring litigants who violate the rules with impunity.

  • Procedural rules are required to be followed, except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of their thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.