• This landmark case clarifies two critical procedural rules in ejectment suits. First, it affirms that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is a prohibited pleading against an interlocutory order (like a denial of a motion to dismiss) in a summary proceeding like unlawful detainer. Second, it establishes that the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case is counted not from the expiration of the lease contract, but from the date of the *last demand* to vacate. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC for erroneously entertaining a prohibited petition and for miscalculating the prescriptive period, ordering the MeTC to proceed with the case.

• The Lease & Sublease: The Republic and NPC leased government land to TRCFI (later succeeded by PDAF) for a 25-year period ending on December 31, 2002. TRCFI, in turn, subleased the property to Sunvar Realty, with the sublease also expiring on the same date.
• Expiration and Holdover: In June 2002, the government notified PDAF that the main lease would not be renewed. PDAF relayed this to Sunvar. Despite the expiration on December 31, 2002, Sunvar continued to occupy the property.
• Demands to Vacate: The government sent a notice to vacate on February 22, 2008, and a *final* notice to vacate on February 3, 2009. Sunvar refused to leave.
• Ejectment Suit: The government filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with the MeTC of Makati on July 23, 2009.

• MeTC Ruling: Sunvar filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The MeTC denied the motion.
• RTC Ruling: Instead of proceeding with the case in the MeTC, Sunvar filed a Rule 65 Petition for *Certiorari* with the RTC. The RTC erroneously took cognizance of this prohibited pleading and ordered the MeTC to dismiss the unlawful detainer case, ruling that the one-year period had already prescribed because it should have been counted from the lease expiration in 2002.

• Did the RTC have jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 65 Petition for *Certiorari* filed against an interlocutory order of the MeTC in a summary ejectment suit?
• When does the one-year prescriptive period for filing an unlawful detainer complaint commence?

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and REVERSED the RTC's decision.

• RTC Erred in Taking Cognizance of Prohibited Pleading: The RTC should have dismissed the Rule 65 petition outright. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a petition for *certiorari* against an interlocutory order of the MeTC is a prohibited pleading. The exceptions cited by Sunvar were not applicable.
• One-Year Period Reckoned from Last Demand: The Court reiterated the established rule that the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer suit is counted from the date of the *last demand* to vacate. Since the government tolerated Sunvar's possession after the lease expired, the possession only became unlawful upon the final demand. The last demand was on February 3, 2009, so the complaint filed on July 23, 2009 was well within the one-year period.

• Prohibited Pleadings in Summary Procedure: A Petition for *Certiorari* under Rule 65 against an interlocutory order (e.g., denial of a motion to dismiss) issued by a first-level court in an ejectment case is a prohibited pleading and should be dismissed outright by the RTC.
• Unlawful Detainer: An action to recover possession from one who legally entered but whose right to possess has expired or terminated. The possession becomes unlawful upon notice and demand to vacate.
• Reckoning of One-Year Period: For unlawful detainer, the one-year period to file the suit is counted from the date of the *last demand* to vacate, especially when the owner tolerates the continued possession of the property after the contract expires.