TOPIC Forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Rule 70

CASE NO. G.R. No. 110174

CASE NAME Labastida v. CA
MEMBER Robyn Bangsil

DOCTRINE
1. Unlawful detainer cases brought within one year after the unlawful withholding of the property must
be filed before the Municipal Trial Court, not the Regional Trial Court.
o The Regional Trial Court would have jurisdiction if the deprivation of possession had
been committed through other means than those enumerated in Rule 70, or if the period
of dispossession under Rule 70 has lasted for more than a year. (See ratio portion for
Rule 70, Sec.1!)
2. In case of several demands in an unlawful detainer case, the period is reckoned from the date of the
last demand.
o This is based on the theory that if the lessor brings no action shortly after the demand, it
may be because he has agreed to the renewal of the lease.
3. In cases of ejectments based on the expiration of the lease, no notice is required and any notice given
only serves to negate any inference that the lessor has extended the period of the lease. Such notice is
needed only when the action is due to the lessees failure to pay the rent or do not comply with the
obligations of the lease. (The court based this on Rule 70, §2, see ratio portion for whole provision!)

RECIT-READY DIGEST (Modified CDAsia Synopsis)

Private respondents were the owners of Lot 226 registered under TCT T-22148, a portion of which
was leased to petitioners. Petitioners were later given verbal notices to vacate the subject lot and two
written notices to vacate, the last of which was on February 20, 1983. On December 6, 1983, private
respondents filed a complaint with the RTC denominated as one for recovery of possession and damages
alleging that despite notices to vacate and expiration of their month-to-month contract, petitioners refused
to vacate the property. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondents. It was affirmed
on appeal, hence, this recourse. The issues are 1) Whether or not the case is one of unlawful detainer, not
recovery of possession? YES 2) Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case? NO

On the first issue, the court ruled that a lease on a month-to-month basis is deemed to expire at the
end of the month upon notice to vacate addressed by the lessor to the lessee. The refusal of the lessee to
leave the premises gives rise to an action for unlawful detainer. In case several demands to vacate are
made, the period is reckoned from the date of the last demand. The period of unlawful withholding starts
to run from the date of the last demand on the theory that if the lessor brings no action shortly after the
demand, it may be because he has agreed to renewal of the lease. (See doctrine 1!)
On the second issue, the court ruled that the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction where the case
was filed within one year from the date of the last demand to vacate. The case should have been brought
in the Municipal Trial Court. (See doctrines 2 &3!)

FACTS
- Private respondents, the Delestes, in this case are the owners of a parcel of land and said land was
leased to the petitioners Nonito Labastida for a monthly rental.
- A case was initiated by the Delestes denominated as one for recovery of possession and damages with
preliminary mandatory injunction, praying that the plaintiffs be ordered to vacate the land.
- They allegedly sent notice to the occupants that the property was going to be used as a commercial
building and instead of heeding this request, the petitioners repaired the building erected upon it and
putt additional constructions on the lot and refused to vacate said property.

1
- In their answer, the Labastidas are now stating that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the person of the
defendants and over the nature of the subject matter of the action since there is no evidence that the 1
year period has elapsed from the time defendants received the written notice to vacate, coupled by the
fact that clearly, this was a case of unlawful detainer (which should be filed with the MTC).
o They claim that there was actually no demand made and that if ever there was a demand, it
was made on Feb 20, 1983.
o And since this case was instituted less than 1 year after such demand, it is clearly an
unlawful detainer case.
- The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondents. Such decision was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. Whether or not the case is one of unlawful detainer, not recovery of possession? YES
2. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case? NO

RATIO
1. On the first issue, it is evident from the allegations of the complaint filed by the private respondents
that the case was actually an unlawful detainer. The respondents here allege that they were the
registered owners of the lot subject of the case and thus entitled to possession thereof and that
petitioners were mere lessees paying rent.
o This therefore, amounts to an allegation that petitioners were unlawfully withholding the
possession of the land. This refusal of the lessee to leave the premises gives rise to an action
for unlawful detainer.
o The action therefore, is not a recovery of possession.
- Rule 70.§1 provides:
SEC. 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — Subject to the provisions of the next
succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person against
whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the
legal representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any
time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an
action in the proper inferior court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or
depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such
possession, together with damages and costs.

2. On the second issue, the question is whether the case was brought within one year after the unlawful
withholding of possession to sustain petitioners' contention that the action should have been filed
before the Municipal Trial Court rather than in the Regional Trial Court.
- In case of several demands in an unlawful detainer case, the period is reckoned from the date of
the last demand.
o This is based on the theory that if the lessor brings no action shortly after the demand, it may
be because he has agreed to the renewal of the lease.
- In this case, the date of the last demand was on Feb 20, 1983 and this case was instituted on
December 3, 1983. Thus, it is clear that the case should have been brought to the MTC.
- The Regional Trial Court would have jurisdiction if the deprivation of possession had been
committed through other means than those enumerated in Rule 70, or if the period of dispossession
under Rule 70 has lasted for more than a year.

3. On the third issue, the CA previously ruled that petitioners are estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of the trial court on the ground that they denied having received the notice to vacate sent
to them dated February 20, 1983 and it was only in their answer later filed that they said that "if ever

2
there was any demand it was on February 20, 1983" for the purpose of arguing that the case should
have been filed in the MTC.
- But if private respondents are to be bound by their argument that no demand had ever been served on
them, then, as provided by Rule 70, §2, all the more no action can be brought against them. Thus,
Rule 70, §2 provides:
SEC. 2. Landlord to proceed against tenant only after demand. — No landlord, or his legal
representative or assign, shall bring such action against a tenant for failure to pay rent due or to
comply with the conditions of his lease, unless the tenant shall have failed to pay such rent or
comply with such conditions for a period of fiteen (15) days, or five (5) days in the case of
building, after demand therefor, made upon him personally, or by serving written notice of such
demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no
persons be found thereon.
- The SC ruled that in cases of ejectments based on the expiration of the lease, no notice is required and
any notice given only serves to negate any inference that the lessor has extended the period of the
lease. Such notice is needed only when the action is due to the lessees failure to pay the rent or do not
comply with the obligations of the lease.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the proceedings before Branch
4, RTC of Iligan City in Civil Case No. 186 are declared NULL and VOID for lack of jurisdiction of that
court. SO ORDERED.