UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH DAMAGES

In Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes,[62] the Court recently defined the nature
and scope of an unlawful detainer suit, as follows:
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who
illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession
under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is
originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
The proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or
metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last
demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Hence, a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful
detainer if it states the following elements:
1. Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff.

2. Eventually, the possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice to

the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession.

3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and

deprived the plaintiff of the latter’s enjoyment.

4. Within one year from the making of the last demand on the defendant
to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the Complaint for ejectment.[63]
“On the other hand, accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the
right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding
to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other
words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year had
elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant’s
possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or
illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.”[64]

Unlawful Detainer
In Cabrera v. Getaruela, the Court held that a complaint
sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it
recites the following:
 (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s
right of possession;
(3) thereafter, 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 (Ruben C. Copuz, rep. by Atty.-in-fact
Wenifreda C. AgullanaVs. Sps. Hilarion Agustin and
Justa Agustin, G.R. No. 183822. January 18, 2012).

An action for “forcible entry” must contain allegation that one is in possession of
the property and was ousted therefrom either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy,
or stealth, an element of that kind of eviction suit.
On the other hand, an action is for unlawful detainer if the complaint sufficiently
alleges the following: (1) initially, the defendant has possession of property by
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, however, such possession
became illegal upon plaintiff’s notice to defendant, terminating the latter’s right of
possession; (3) still, the defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of
the enjoyment of his property; and (4) within a year from plaintiff’s last demand that
defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a complaint for
defendant’s ejectment. If the defendant had possession of the land upon mere
tolerance of the owner, such tolerance must be present at the beginning of
defendant’s possession.
(Dionisio v. Linsangan, G.R. No. 178159, March 2, 2011)