JURISDICTIONAL REQUISITES FOR FILING AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.

Hence, a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it states the following elements:

1.       Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

2.       Eventually, the possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice to the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;

3.       Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the latter’s enjoyment; and

4.       Within one year from the making of the last demand on the defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the Complaint for ejectment. Such one year period should be counted from the date of plaintiff’s last demand on defendant to vacate the real property, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful. (Estate of Soledad Manantan v. Somera, G.R. No. 145867, 07 April 2009, 584 SCRA 81, 90, citing Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 320 Phil. 146, 154 (1995); Lopez v. David, Jr., G.R. No. 152145, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 535, 542; Varona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124148, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 577, 583-584.)

References:

Macaslang v. Spouses Zamora, G.R. No. 156375, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 104, citing Cabrera v. Getaruela, 586 SCRA 129, 136-137 (2009); see also Corpuz v. Spouses Agustin, G.R. No. 183822, 18 January 2012 and Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odones, G.R. No. 178096, 23 March 2011, 646 SCRA 328, 334-335, Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en Las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF), Inc. v. Juane, G.R. No. 172447 & 179404, 18 September 2009, 600 SCRA 555, 562-563; Parsicha, v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 273, 288;  Fernando v. Spouses Lim, G.R. No. 176282, 22 August 2008, 563 SCRA 147, 159-160.)