Rivera-Avante v. Rivera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Leonora Rivera-Avante is the registered owner of a house and lot. She and her husband allowed her sister-in-law, respondent Milagros Rivera, to stay in the premises out of compassion. In 2005, petitioner demanded that respondents vacate the property, intending to use it for their children. Petitioner also learned that respondents were financially capable of renting their own place and had acquired properties and vehicles. Respondents refused to vacate, claiming co-ownership and alleging fraud in petitioner's acquisition of title. Petitioner sent a formal demand letter on May 22, 2006, and another on September 3, 2007, asking them to vacate and pay rent. Respondents remained unheeded. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on March 12, 2008. The MeTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to vacate and pay rent, making a provisional determination of ownership in petitioner's favor. Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which set aside the MeTC decision and dismissed the unlawful detainer case, holding that the complaint was filed beyond the one-year reglementary period from the May 22, 2006 demand letter. However, the RTC affirmed petitioner's right to possess the property based on the MeTC's provisional finding of ownership. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling, holding that the one-year period should be reckoned from the May 22, 2006 demand letter, as the September 3, 2007 letter was a mere reminder. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision to affirm the RTC's reversal of the MeTC ruling and its holding that the one-year period for filing the unlawful detainer case should be reckoned from the May 22, 2006 demand letter.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's decision which reversed the MeTC's ruling in favor of the petitioner, encompassing the timeliness of the unlawful detainer case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's decision in holding that the one-year period within which an unlawful detainer case must be filed is reckoned from the May 22, 2006 demand letter and not the September 3, 2007 demand letter as the final one. Whether petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed with the Court of Appeals was belatedly filed, and the availability of other remedies.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the unlawful detainer case: The Court reiterated the settled principles governing unlawful detainer, emphasizing that it is an action to recover possession where the defendant's possession was initially legal but became illegal upon termination of the right to possess. A key requirement is that the complaint must be filed within one year from the last demand to vacate. However, subsequent demands that are merely in the nature of reminders of the original demand do not operate to renew the one-year period. The RTC and CA correctly ruled that the September 3, 2007 demand letter was a mere reiteration of the May 22, 2006 demand. Therefore, the one-year prescriptive period should be reckoned from May 22, 2006. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the RTC and CA, which are generally conclusive and binding, finding no exceptional reason to depart from this policy. The Court cited Racaza v. Gozum and Republic of the Philippines, et al. v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation in support of this principle, noting that while the general rule is to count from the last demand, this is subject to the exception where subsequent demands are mere reiterations. On the issue of the one-year period: The RTC and CA correctly ruled that the September 3, 2007 demand letter was a mere reiteration of the May 22, 2006 demand. Therefore, the one-year prescriptive period should be reckoned from May 22, 2006. On the procedural transgression of filing a belated motion for reconsideration and the availability of other remedies: The Court found that petitioner's motion for reconsideration with the CA was belatedly filed. The CA's Decision was promulgated on March 5, 2015. Petitioner claimed receipt on June 16, 2015, giving her until June 30, 2015, to file a motion for reconsideration. However, postal records indicated delivery to her counsel on June 15, 2015. Petitioner filed her motion on July 1, 2015, one day late. The Court stressed that the right to appeal is statutory and requires strict compliance with reglementary periods, which are jurisdictional. The fifteen-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. The Court cited De Leon v. Hercules Agro industrial Corporation, et al. and Barrio Fiesta Restaurant, et al. v. Beronia to emphasize that failure to perfect an appeal or file a motion for reconsideration within the period renders the judgment final and executory. The Court also noted that while procedural rules may be relaxed in exceptional circumstances, petitioner's bare invocation of "the interest of justice" was insufficient justification, as per Foculan-Fudalan v. Spouses Ocial, et al.. The Court acknowledged that while the petition was denied due to procedural infirmities, petitioner was not entirely without recourse. She could still file another action to recover possession of the subject property in the proper court, considering the assessed value of the lot and the duration of dispossession exceeding one year. This implies that an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria might be appropriate, as suggested by the RTC's observation.
Main Doctrine
Subsequent demand letters that merely reiterate an original demand do not renew the one-year prescriptive period for filing an unlawful detainer case, which is reckoned from the date of the original demand. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration filed beyond the reglementary period renders the judgment final and executory, foreclosing the right to appeal.