VDA. DE BORROMEO v. POGOY- Forcible entry and unlawful detainer

Special Civil Actions; Forcible entry and unlawful detainer prescribes in one year counted from demand to vacate the premises


Petitioner seeks to stop respondent Judge Pogoy from taking cognizance of an ejectment suit for failure of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation.

Deceased Vito Borromeo was the original owner of the building which was leased to herein petitioner Petra Vda. De Borromeo for P500 per month payable within the first five days of the month. On August 28, 1982, Atty Ricardo Reyes, administrator of the estate, served upon petitioner a letter demanding that she pay the overde rentals corresponding to the period from March to September (1982), and thereafter vacate the premises. Petitioner failed to do so, thus the respondent instituted an ejectment case against the former. Petitioner moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. She points out that the parties are from the same cities and as such they must refer the dispute to the barangay Court or Lupon before going through the judicial courts. Respondent’s defense was that it was danger of prescribing under the statute of limitations. The motion was dismissed thus this case.


Whether or not it was indeed in danger of prescribing?

Whether or not going through Lupon was necessary?

RULING: NO to both.

The defense of Atty Reyes regarding the statute of limitations is unacceptable because the case was filed on September 16, 1982, less than a month before the letter of demand was served. Forcible entry and detainer prescribes in one year counted from demand to vacate the premises and the law only required 60 days upon which the parties should try to reconcile in Lupon; Respondent had more than 9 months left even if reconciliation failed.

However, PD No. 1508, wherein it is required to go through Lupon first before going to courts only applies to “individuals”. In this case, Ricardo reyes is a mere nominal party who is suing in behalf of the Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo thus it is inapplicable to them.