Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    Leonora Rivera-Avante V. Milagros Rivera G.R. No. 224137, April 03, 2019 Third Division (Peralta) Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    Leonora Rivera-Avante filed an action for unlawful detainer against Milagros Rivera to recover possession of a property. Rivera was allowed to stay in the property out of compassion by Avante and her husband. However, Avante and her husband demanded that Rivera vacate the property as they needed to use it and distribute it to their children. Rivera refused to vacate. Avante sent demands on May 22, 2006 and September 3, 2007 for Rivera to vacate but Rivera still refused. The court held that Avante's action would not prosper because she filed the case over a year after her original demand on May 22, 2006, making it untimely. Subsequent demands that are merely reminders

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Leonora Rivera-Avante V. Milagros Rivera G.R. No. 224137, April 03, 2019 Third Division (Peralta) Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    178 views2 pages
    Leonora Rivera-Avante filed an action for unlawful detainer against Milagros Rivera to recover possession of a property. Rivera was allowed to stay in the property out of compassion by Avante and her husband. However, Avante and her husband demanded that Rivera vacate the property as they needed to use it and distribute it to their children. Rivera refused to vacate. Avante sent demands on May 22, 2006 and September 3, 2007 for Rivera to vacate but Rivera still refused. The court held that Avante's action would not prosper because she filed the case over a year after her original demand on May 22, 2006, making it untimely. Subsequent demands that are merely reminders

    Original Title

    224137

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leonora Rivera-Avante filed an action for unlawful detainer against Milagros Rivera to recover possession of a property. Rivera was allowed to stay in the property out of compassion by Avante and her husband. However, Avante and her husband demanded that Rivera vacate the property as they needed to use it and distribute it to their children. Rivera refused to vacate. Avante sent demands on May 22, 2006 and September 3, 2007 for Rivera to vacate but Rivera still refused. The court held that Avante's action would not prosper because she filed the case over a year after her original demand on May 22, 2006, making it untimely. Subsequent demands that are merely reminders

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    178 views2 pages

    Leonora Rivera-Avante V. Milagros Rivera G.R. No. 224137, April 03, 2019 Third Division (Peralta) Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    Leonora Rivera-Avante filed an action for unlawful detainer against Milagros Rivera to recover possession of a property. Rivera was allowed to stay in the property out of compassion by Avante and her husband. However, Avante and her husband demanded that Rivera vacate the property as they needed to use it and distribute it to their children. Rivera refused to vacate. Avante sent demands on May 22, 2006 and September 3, 2007 for Rivera to vacate but Rivera still refused. The court held that Avante's action would not prosper because she filed the case over a year after her original demand on May 22, 2006, making it untimely. Subsequent demands that are merely reminders

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LEONORA RIVERA-AVANTE v.

    MILAGROS RIVERA
    G.R. No. 224137, April 03, 2019
    THIRD DIVISION
    (PERALTA)
    DOCTRINE:
    An action for unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real
    property from one who unlawfully withholds possession after the
    expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any
    contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in an
    unlawful detainer case is originally legal but becomes illegal due to the
    expiration or termination of the right to possess. A complaint for
    unlawful detainer should be brought within one year from the last
    demand on defendant to vacate the property.

    FACTS:
    Avante claims that she and her husband allowed Rivera to stay in the
    disputed premises out of compassion for respondent and in
    consideration of her deceased brother Alejandro. However, Avante and
    her husband, finding the need to utilize the property and in view of their
    plan to distribute the same to their children, demanded that Rivera
    vacate the premises in question. However, Rivera refused the demand of
    Avante and her husband. On May 22, 2006, petitioner sent a formal
    demand letter to Rivera asking them to vacate the premises, but this
    remained unheeded. On September 3, 2007, Avante sent Rivera another
    letter but to no avail.

    ISSUE:
    Will an action for unlawful detainer prosper?

    HELD:
    No. A complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if the following
    allegations are present: (1) initially, possession of property by the
    defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) such
    possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the
    termination of the latter's right of possession; (3) the defendant remained
    in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment
    thereof; and (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to
    vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

    Subsequent demands that are merely in the nature of reminders of the


    original demand do not operate to renew the one-year period within
    which to commence an ejectment suit, considering that the period will
    still be reckoned from the date of the original demand. Thus, on the basis
    of this settled rule, the letter of September 3, 2007, which is a mere
    reiteration of the original demand, will not operate to renew the one-year
    period within which Avante should file her unlawful detainer case.

    You might also like