Case Digest (G.R. No. 224137)
Facts:
Leonora Rivera-Avante v. Milagros Rivera and their heirs with the late Alejandro Rivera, and all other persons who are deriving claim or rights from them, G.R. No. 224137, April 03, 2019, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Leonora Rivera‑Avante is the registered owner of a house and lot at 1404 Leroy St., Paco, Manila. Respondent Milagros Rivera is the widow of petitioner’s brother Alejandro; respondents occupied the subject premises with petitioner’s tolerance. Petitioner and her husband demanded that respondents vacate because they planned to use and distribute the property to their children; respondents refused and filed a separate action challenging petitioner’s title (RTC Civil Case No. 06‑115716 for cancellation of title and partition).
Petitioner sent a demand to vacate dated May 22, 2006 and another dated September 3, 2007, and thereafter filed an unlawful detainer complaint with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila on March 12, 2008. The MeTC (Branch 19) rendered judgment in favor of petitioner on August 20, 2010: it ordered respondents to vacate, to pay occupancy from September 2007 until surrender, attorney’s fees of P20,000, and costs. The MeTC made a provisional determination of ownership in petitioner’s favor for purposes of deciding possession.
Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which on March 24, 2011 set aside the MeTC decision and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the one‑year reglementary period under the Rules of Court; the RTC held that petitioner’s remedy, given the lapse, should have been an accion publiciana in the RTC. The RTC nonetheless agreed with the MeTC’s provisional finding that petitioner had the right to possess the lot.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) by a Rule 42 petition. The CA, in a Decision promulgated March 5, 2015 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 120047), affirmed the RTC: the CA ruled the one‑year period ran from petitioner’s initial demand of May 22, 2006 and that the September 3, 2007 letter was a mere reminder that did not renew the prescriptive year. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA on July 1, 2015; the CA denied the motion in a Resolution dated April 12, 2016.
The CA record and a postal certification from the Postmaster of San Juan City indicated that petitioner’s counsel received the CA Decision by registered mail on June 15, 2015,...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Should the petition for review be dismissed because petitioner failed to timely file a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, thereby foreclosing her right to appeal to the Supreme Court?
- Substantive: Was the one‑year prescriptive period for filing petitioner’s unlawful detainer action to be reckoned from May 22, 2006 (the initial demand) or from Septe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)