Demand Is Key: Prescription in Unlawful Detainer and Mortgage Foreclosure Contexts

The Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Reyes v. Heirs of Forlales clarifies a critical point in ejectment cases: the one-year period to file an unlawful detainer suit is counted from the first demand to vacate, not from a later demand that a plaintiff sends to restart the clock. The case also explains the difference between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and why a dismissal based on prescription can bar a second suit.

The Facts

The respondents owned a portion of Lot No. 1408 in Romblon. The petitioners occupied the land since 1978, initially with permission. In 1988, they signed an affidavit acknowledging their stay was temporary and by tolerance. On May 28, 1993, the respondents formally demanded that the petitioners vacate within six months. The petitioners did not leave.

In August 1997, the respondents filed an unlawful detainer complaint. The court dismissed it because it was filed more than one year after the May 28, 1993 demand. That dismissal became final.

In May 2005, the respondents sent another demand to vacate, and in October 2005, they filed a new ejectment complaint. The lower courts ruled in their favor, holding that the petitioners’ possession from 1993 to 2005 was by mere tolerance, so the one-year period ran from the 2005 demand. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Issue

When does the one-year prescriptive period for unlawful detainer begin—from the first demand to vacate or from a later demand?

The Ruling

The Court held that the one-year period is counted from the first demand to vacate. A plaintiff cannot reset the clock by sending a new demand years later.

The Court distinguished forcible entry from unlawful detainer. Forcible entry applies when possession is illegal from the start (by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth). Unlawful detainer applies when possession was initially lawful but became illegal after the owner demanded the occupant to leave. For unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege that: (1) possession began by contract or tolerance; (2) possession became illegal upon demand; (3) the defendant remained in possession; and (4) the suit was filed within one year from the last demand.

Here, the respondents had already considered the petitioners’ occupation illegal as early as 1993, when they made the first demand. The filing of the 1997 complaint proved they no longer tolerated the petitioners’ stay. The Court rejected the idea that the petitioners’ possession from 1993 to 2005 was by mere tolerance. Tolerance must exist from the start of possession; it cannot be manufactured later to avoid prescription.

The Court also ruled that the dismissal of the first case was a judgment on the merits, even though it was based on prescription. Because the first complaint was dismissed for being filed late, the respondents could not file a second unlawful detainer suit based on a new demand. Their proper remedy was an accion publiciana—a plenary action to recover possession—before the Regional Trial Court, not another ejectment case.

Practical Takeaways

• The first demand matters. In unlawful detainer, the one-year period runs from the first demand to vacate. Sending a new demand later does not revive the right to file an ejectment suit.
• Tolerance must be genuine. Courts will not accept a claim of tolerance if the evidence shows the owner had already demanded the occupant to leave.
• Prescription can bar a second suit. A dismissal based on prescription is a judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata. The plaintiff cannot file the same case again.
• Know the right remedy. If more than one year has passed since the demand, the proper action is accion publiciana before the Regional Trial Court, not an ejectment suit in the municipal court.
• Ejectment suits are summary. They are designed for speedy relief. Delaying a suit undermines the purpose of the remedy.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.