Written Demand and Unlawful Detainer: Protecting Landowners From Unauthorized Property Sales

The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Mirallosa v. Carmel Development, Inc. (G.R. No. 194538) clarifies the rules on unlawful detainer and the importance of a written demand in recovering possession of property. The case arose from a disputed Caloocan City lot, where a homeowner’s occupation traced back to a presidential decree later declared unconstitutional. The decision offers practical guidance for landowners seeking to reclaim property and for occupants relying on defective titles.

The Facts of the Case

Carmel Development, Inc. was the registered owner of a 156-hectare property in Caloocan City known as Pangarap Village. In 1973, Presidential Decree No. 293 was issued, declaring the company’s titles invalid and opening the property for disposition to members of the Malacañang Homeowners Association, Inc. (MHAI). A memorandum to this effect was inscribed on the titles.

The petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, a member of MHAI, occupied Lot No. 32 and built houses there. In 1988, however, the Supreme Court declared P.D. 293 unconstitutional and void ab initio in Tuason v. Register of Deeds. The Register of Deeds then cancelled the memorandum and restored Carmel Development’s ownership.

Despite this, the petitioner took over the lot in 1995 through an Affidavit from his predecessor. After oral demands to vacate failed, Carmel Development sent a written demand letter in April 2002. When the petitioner refused to leave, the company filed an unlawful detainer complaint in January 2003.

The Issue Before the Court

The case raised three main questions: whether the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the ejectment case; whether the Tuason ruling bound the petitioner even though he was not a party to that case; and whether the petitioner could claim the rights of a builder in good faith.

The Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carmel Development, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the case was properly one of unlawful detainer, which arises when a person unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.

On jurisdiction and the demand requirement. The Court emphasized that the demand to vacate is jurisdictional in nature. The one-year prescriptive period for filing an unlawful detainer case is counted from the date of the last demand, not from the start of possession. Here, the demand letter was sent in April 2002, and the complaint was filed in January 2003—well within the one-year period.

The Court rejected the argument that tolerance must have existed from the start of possession. While tolerance must generally be present at the beginning, the Court noted that the petitioner’s possession under P.D. 293 was not true tolerance—the decree gave Carmel Development no choice but to allow occupancy. True tolerance began only after the decree was invalidated and the company allowed the petitioner to remain.

On the effect of the Tuason ruling. The Court held that a law declared unconstitutional produces no effect and confers no right on any person, whether or not they were a party to the case. The declaration of unconstitutionality partakes of the nature of an in rem proceeding, binding on all persons. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the operative fact doctrine, which recognizes the interim effects of an unconstitutional law. That doctrine is a rule of equity that cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional act.

On good faith. The Court found that the petitioner was not a builder in good faith. He occupied the property in 1995, seven years after Tuason was promulgated. Since judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, he should have been aware of the ruling. Under Article 449 of the Civil Code, one who builds in bad faith on another’s land loses what is built without right to indemnity.

Practical Takeaways

• A written demand is crucial. In unlawful detainer cases, the demand to vacate triggers the running of the one-year prescriptive period. Landowners should send a formal written demand before filing an ejectment case.
• An unconstitutional law confers no rights. Occupants cannot rely on a decree later declared void, even if they were not party to the case declaring it unconstitutional.
• Good faith is measured from actual knowledge. Occupants who take possession after a law is invalidated cannot claim to be builders in good faith.
• Ejectment courts can provisionally rule on ownership. Even if ownership is disputed, the court may determine who has the better right to possession, subject to a separate action for title.

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