Development Bank v. Canonoy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) conditionally sold lots to the University of San Carlos (USC). USC required Pedro Clavano, who had occupied the premises since 1945 and built a house thereon, to vacate. Clavano refused, alleging the sale was illegal as USC is run by foreigners and that the original owner, Philippine Railway, had promised to sell him the land. Procedural History: Civil Case No. R-8996 for ejectment was filed in the Municipal Court of Cebu against 62 defendants, including Clavano. The Municipal Court denied Clavano's motion to dismiss and ordered the complaint split. Civil Case No. 10354 was subsequently filed against Clavano. The Municipal Court denied Clavano's motion to dismiss and motion to suspend hearing, eventually rendering judgment in favor of petitioners, but granting Clavano P10,000.00 for improvements and the right to remain until paid, with the option to buy. Petitioners appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The Petition: In the CFI, no motion to dismiss was filed, and the case was tried on the merits. On April 24, 1968, the CFI ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering Clavano to vacate, and finding he was not a builder in good faith. Clavano filed a motion for reconsideration, raising the issue of jurisdiction, arguing more than one year had elapsed since the demand. The CFI granted the motion on June 25, 1968, ruling the cause of action accrued in July 1960 (30 days after June 10, 1960, the date of the first demand), thus the court lacked jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on August 6, 1968. This led to the filing of the present special civil action for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer action should be reckoned from the date of the first demand or the date of the last demand for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted. The resolution of June 25, 1968, and the order of August 6, 1968, are declared void and without legal force or effect. The decision of April 24, 1968, by the respondent Judge is reinstated and affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case is to be counted from the last letter of demand. Applying the principle reaffirmed in Sy Oh v. Garcia, the Court noted that a lessor has the privilege to waive his right to bring a proper action or to allow the lessee to continue in his occupation after an initial breach. This inaction by the lessor is construed as a waiver of the right to file the case based on that specific demand, and the tolerance legalizes the otherwise unlawful possession. Therefore, the cause of action for illegal detainer only accrues when the final demand for surrender of possession is not complied with. In this case, the second demand was made on May 14, 1962, and the complaint was filed on November 19, 1962, well within the one-year prescriptive period. The Court emphasized that this doctrine has been steadfastly adhered to since Lucido v. Vita in 1913, and any departure from it by lower courts is objectionable.
Main Doctrine
In ejectment cases, the one-year period within which to file the action is to be counted from the date of the last demand, as the lessor has the privilege to waive the right to bring an action or to allow the lessee to continue in occupation, thereby legalizing the possession.