Dear PAO,

I was a lessee of a two-bedroom apartment, as evidenced by a contract of lease duly signed by me and my landlord. When our contract expired sometime in 2021, my landlord allowed me to continue living in the apartment even without a signed contract as long as I religiously pay the same amount of monthly rental as indicated in our expired contract. However, due to inadvertence and sheer forgetfulness, I have failed to deposit the payment for the last month’s rent. My landlord reported me to the barangay officials while threatening to institute an ejectment suit. I am not trying to evade my responsibility, and he could have civilly asked for the payment when I failed to take the initiative to deposit it. Can he easily file an ejectment suit against me?

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

No, your landlord cannot easily institute an ejectment suit against you.

It is settled that jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought (Section 9 of Rule III of the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts). In Galacgac vs. Bautista (GR 221384, Nov. 9, 2020, Ponente: Associate Justice Mario Lopez), the Supreme Court emphasized that in order for an ejectment suit to prosper, the complainant must prove that within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

In relation thereto, in Cruz vs. Sps. Maximo and Susan Christensen (GR 205539, Oct. 4, 2017, Ponente: Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen), the Supreme Court emphasized that prior demand is a jurisdictional requirement before an ejection suit, be it for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, may be instituted, to wit:

“xxx Refusal to vacate despite demand will give rise to an action for summary ejectment. Thus, prior demand is a jurisdictional requirement before an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be instituted.

“Under Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an action for unlawful detainer may be brought against a possessor of a property who unlawfully withholds possession after the termination or expiration of the right to hold possession. Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that there must first be a prior demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate before an action can be filed xxx”

Taken together, the Supreme Court emphasized that a prior demand to vacate and/or pay the monthly rental is necessary before filing an ejectment suit. As it has been consistently held, prior demand is a jurisdictional necessity because the actual date of its receipt serves as the reckoning date of the one-year period to file the ejectment case. Considering that no demand to vacate and/or pay was duly communicated by your landlord, an ejectment case against you may not prosper. However, it would be best to be prompt and diligent in paying your dues to avoid any inconvenience, not only to your own person but also to your landlord.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]