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 plaintiffs

notice to the defendant of the termination of the latters right of
possession.

3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the

property and deprived the plaintiff of the latters 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 defendants
possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or
illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.[64]
 There are no substantial disagreements with respect to the first three
requisites for an action for unlawful detainer. Respondent Sunvar initially derived
its right to possess the subject property from its sublease agreements with TRCFI
and later on with PDAF. However, with the expiration of the lease agreements on
31 December 2002, respondent lost possessory rights over the subject property.
Nevertheless, it continued occupying the property for almost seven years
thereafter. It was only on 03 February 2009 that petitioners made a final demand
upon respondent Sunvar to turn over the property. What is disputed, however, is
the fourth requisite of an unlawful detainer suit.