G.R. No. 110297 - De Vera vs. Court of Appeals

Nature and background of the tenancy
Petitioner Consolacion de Vera was the tenant of a unit of an apartment building located at 1067 Bilbao St., Tondo, Manila.
Petitioner leased the apartment unit in 1967 from its original owner, Llantos, Lim & Sons, Inc., and paid rentals on a monthly basis.
The original monthly rental was P150.00.
Upon the termination of the lease on December 30, 1990, the monthly rental had increased to P924.00.

Sale of the property and notices to petitioner
In 1990, the owner sold the apartment building to private respondent Quayalay Realty Corporation.
The sale came with notice to petitioner dated December 5, 1990, informing petitioner that, due to the sale, the month-to-month contract of lease “will no longer be renewed at its expiration on December 30, 1990.”
Petitioner was advised that if she wanted to continue the lease, she could discuss the matter with the new owner, Quayalay Realty.
On December 29, 1990, petitioner received notice from Quayalay Realty asking her to vacate not later than January 5, 1991, otherwise the corporation would be compelled to file action.
Petitioner pleaded for time to stay in the premises, but her request was denied.

Ejectment suits and consolidation
Petitioner and the other lessees refused to vacate.
On January 9, 1991, Quayalay Realty filed ejectment suits against them in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
The cases were consolidated in Branch 25 of the MeTC.

The month-to-month oral lease contract had already expired on December 30, 1990 and had not been renewed.
The corporation made demand on the lessees to vacate, but the lessees refused to leave.
Quayalay Realty asserted that it had a cause of action for ejectment due to the expiration and non-renewal of the lease period.

Petitioner asserted that the oral contract of lease was for an indefinite period.
Petitioner argued that, consequently, the lease did not expire at the end of the month.
Petitioner claimed that Quayalay Realty had no cause of action against her.

The MeTC ruled that the lease was month-to-month.
Since it was not renewed, ejectment was in order.
Petitioner was ordered to vacate the leased premises.
Petitioner was ordered to pay rentals from January 1991 up to the finality of the judgment.
The MeTC awarded P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees and costs of the suit.

(Subscriber-Only)

Period and nature of the oral lease contract
Whether petitioner’s verbal contract of lease was on a month-to-month basis, terminable at the end of every month.
Whether treating the oral lease as definite for purposes of ejectment rendered nugatory Sections 5 and 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877.

Availability of ejectment due to expiration of lease period
Whether, aside from the grounds enumerated for ejectment under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, the owner-lessor still could not eject the tenant on the ground of expiration of the lease period under Article 1687 of the Civil Code.

Effect of sale and alleged binding character of the lease upon the buyer
Whether Quayalay Realty was bound to respect the lease because it knew the property was subject to an exist...(Subscriber-Only)