Case Digest (G.R. No. 171891)
Facts:
This case involves Hernania "Lani" Lopez, the petitioner, against Gloria Umale-Cosme, the respondent, in G.R. No. 171891 decided on February 24, 2009. The events took place in Quezon City, where Umale-Cosme owns an apartment building located at 15 Sibuyan Street, Sta. Mesa Heights. Lopez was a lessee of one of the units in this apartment and had a monthly rental rate of P1,340.00 as of 1999. On April 19, 1999, Umale-Cosme initiated a complaint for unlawful detainer against Lopez in Branch 43 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, citing two primary reasons: the expiration of the lease contract and nonpayment of rent since December 1998.
In her defense, Lopez denied any claims of default, asserting that the respondent failed to collect monthly rent on time to falsely imply or document her as being in arrears. Lopez claimed she had been making monthly deposits into a bank, held in trust for the respondent, since February 1999. The MeTC eventually ruled i
Case Digest (G.R. No. 171891)
Facts:
- Background of the Parties
- Respondent Gloria Umale-Cosme is the owner of an apartment building located at 15 Sibuyan Street, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City.
- Petitioner Hernania “Lani” Lopez is the lessee of one of the apartment units and had been paying a monthly rent of P1,340.00 as of 1999.
- The Commencement of the Dispute
- On April 19, 1999, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before Branch 43 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City.
- The complaint was premised on two grounds:
- Expiration of the contract of lease.
- Nonpayment of rentals allegedly due from December 1998 onward.
- Petitioner’s Defense and Allegations
- Petitioner denied defaulting on rental payments by alleging that respondent deliberately did not collect rent as it became due so as to create an impression of arrears.
- She asserted that she had been depositing the monthly rentals in a bank in trust for the respondent since February 1999.
- Procedural History
- The MeTC, Branch 43 rendered judgment on March 19, 2003, in favor of the respondent ordering:
- Petitioner (and her associates) to vacate the premises.
- Payment of monthly rent from December 1998 until vacation of the premises.
- Payment of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit.
- On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC decision and ruled that:
- The contract of lease lacked a definite period.
- The lessee could not be ejected solely on the basis of period expiration until such period was fixed by the judicial authorities.
- A subsequent motion for reconsideration by respondent was denied by the RTC on February 2, 2004.
- Aggrieved by the RTC decision, respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
- The CA noted that in her answer petitioner admitted that the apartment was leased on a month-to-month basis.
- Citing Article 1673 (1) and Article 1687 of the Civil Code, the CA held that:
- Lease agreements without a specified period but with monthly rent payments are deemed to be month-to-month lease contracts with a definite period.
- Such contracts expire at the end of each thirty-day period, provided proper notice of termination and demand to vacate is given.
- Petitioner had made efforts to effect termination by sending written notices and posting a notice on the leased premises on March 1, 1999, in the presence of barangay security officers.
- The CA found that respondent’s right to eject petitioner based on the termination of the lease was proper and dismissed petitioner’s petition for review.
- Petitioner’s further argument regarding the lease’s lack of a definite period was rejected on the basis that her monthly payment practice rendered the lease as one with a fixed, albeit recurring, term.
Issues:
- Whether the absence of an express fixed term in a verbal lease contract precludes the lessor from seeking ejectment on the ground of period expiration.
- The petitioner argues that because the lease contract was verbal and did not specify a definite period, she could not be ejected based on expiration of term.
- Petitioner contends that the lease’s indeterminate nature should protect her rights of occupation.
- Whether monthly payment of rent under a verbal agreement renders the lease contract as one with a definite period.
- The respondent, and ultimately the CA, maintained that regular monthly rental payments imply a month-to-month lease, which carries a fixed period ending on the last day of a thirty-day period.
- This issue also encompasses whether proper notice suffices to effect termination of such a lease.
- The application and interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions
- The effect of Article 1673 (1) and Article 1687 of the Civil Code regarding leases with or without fixed periods.
- The impact of Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 on suspending certain provisions of the Civil Code, and whether that suspension extends to the interpretation of a month-to-month lease termination.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)