Reyes v. Forlales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents filed an unlawful detainer suit against petitioners for occupying a portion of Lot No. 1408, part of the estate of Deogracias Forlales, adjudicated to Mercedes Forlales Bautista. Petitioners claimed occupation since 1978 and executed an affidavit in 1988 stating their stay was with permission and subject to owner's conditions. Mercedes invited them for a talk in 1989, which they refused. Independencia, administrator, sent a demand to vacate on May 28, 1993. Respondents filed an ejectment suit on August 28, 1997, which was dismissed on September 29, 1997, for being filed beyond one year from the May 28, 1993 demand. This decision became final on October 15, 1997. On May 16, 2005, respondents initiated a complaint at the barangay level, and on May 27, 2005, sent a formal demand to vacate. Petitioners were observed building a two-storey concrete house in December 2004, prompting a notice of illegal construction. Petitioners claimed ownership of the lot, alleging it was sold to them by previous owners. They argued the ejectment suit had prescribed, as their entry was allegedly before 1998, and as an unlawful detainer, it prescribed because respondents considered their possession illegal in 1993 or 1997. They also invoked res judicata due to the prior dismissed suit. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) found the lot belonged to respondents, refuted petitioners' ownership claim based on their affidavit and note, and ordered petitioners to vacate, remove improvements, and pay rent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed, ruling that possession from May 28, 1993, to May 27, 2005, was by mere tolerance, and the one-year prescriptive period should be counted from the last demand. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's findings and rulings. The Petition: Petitioners argued that the one-year period for unlawful detainer should start from May 28, 1993, the date of the first demand, as this was when respondents considered their possession unlawful. They contended that filing a complaint in 1997 indicated their belief of illegality. They questioned the CA's ruling on possession by tolerance and argued that counting from the last demand would allow plaintiffs to manipulate the prescriptive period. They also reiterated the argument of res judicata, stating the prior dismissal was on the merits. Petitioners also raised factual issues about the lot's identity, claiming it was Lot No. 780-P, not Lot No. 1408, and that no verification survey was concluded.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts' ruling that the respondents' complaint for ejectment was filed within the one-year prescriptive period. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the present case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, and dismissed the respondents' complaint for ejectment. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the present petition, REVERSE and SET ASIDE the October 27, 2009 decision and the July 9, 2010 resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 107624. The complaint for ejectment dated October 27, 2005 filed by respondents is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against the respondents. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription and the nature of the action: The Court found the petition meritorious, noting that while it could not review questions of fact, it could determine if the law was correctly applied. The Court reiterated that unlawful detainer requires possession to be initially lawful by contract or tolerance, becoming illegal upon termination of the right to possess and a demand to vacate. Forcible entry, conversely, involves illegal entry from the beginning. The one-year period for unlawful detainer is counted from the last demand to vacate, while for forcible entry, it's from the act of dispossession. The Court found that the respondents' allegations in their complaint, particularly the demand to vacate on May 28, 1993, and the subsequent filing of an ejectment case in 1997, indicated that they no longer tolerated the petitioners' possession from that date. Therefore, the possession after May 28, 1993, was not by mere tolerance but had become illegal. The Court cited Sarona v. Villegas to emphasize that tolerance must exist from the start of possession for an unlawful detainer case to prosper, otherwise, it risks allowing a forcible entry case to be filed beyond the one-year period by masking it as unlawful detainer. The Court held that the respondents' attempts to dispossess the petitioners, including the filing of the first unlawful detainer case, demonstrated a lack of tolerance. Consequently, the period to file the unlawful detainer suit should have been reckoned from May 28, 1993, making the complaint filed on October 27, 2005, clearly beyond the one-year prescriptive period. The Court also noted that allowing successive demands to circumvent the one-year limitation would render the rule useless. On the issue of res judicata: The Court found the petitioners' argument of res judicata meritorious. It explained that res judicata, in its aspect of conclusiveness of judgment, precludes the re-litigation of particular issues or facts. For res judicata to apply, the prior judgment must be on the merits. The Court disagreed with the lower courts' finding that the prior case was dismissed on a technicality. It reasoned that the dismissal of the first unlawful detainer complaint on September 29, 1997, was based on the respondents' failure to allege and prove that the complaint was filed within one year from the formal demand made on May 28, 1993. This failure to allege a material element for unlawful detainer, specifically the timely filing of the action, constituted a judgment on the merits, not merely a matter of form. Therefore, the prior judgment barred the re-litigation of the issue of timely filing. The Court concluded that the respondents should have filed a real action, such as an accion publiciana, with the appropriate RTC after the MCTC dismissed their first unlawful detainer suit, as the period for ejectment had lapsed.
Main Doctrine
An unlawful detainer suit must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand to vacate. However, if the possession was already considered illegal from the first demand, or if successive complaints are filed and dismissed on technicalities, the period should be reckoned from the date of the first demand, or the action may be considered barred by res judicata if the prior dismissal was on the merits.