Facts:

The case involves Vicente Mallarte (the petitioner), who entered into a lease agreement with spouses Nicolas and Ramona Gopiao (the respondents) on June 1, 1972, for an apartment located at 840 Moret, Sampaloc, Manila, for a monthly rental of P300. The lease contract contained specific provisions, particularly in paragraphs 8 and 9, which prohibited the subleasing or assignment of the premises without the written consent of the lessors. In June 1979, the lessors conducted an inspection and found that Vicente Mallarte had converted parts of the apartment into bed spaces for boarders, accommodating eight individuals including Adoracion Penalver and her sister, Josephine. Subsequently, the Gopiaos demanded that Mallarte vacate the premises due to the alleged violation of the lease. When he did not comply, they escalated the issue to the barangay court and later the case reached the City Court and then the Regional Trial Court, and eventually

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Vicente Mallarte, who leased an apartment in Sampaloc, Manila.
• Respondents: Spouses Nicolas and Ramona Gopiao (acting through their attorney-in-fact, Nicolas Gopiao, Jr.), the lessors of the apartment.

Lease Agreement and Terms

• The lease was entered on a month-to-month basis with a monthly rental of P300.
• Specific provisions in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the lease expressly prohibited:

- The subleasing or assignment of the leased premises (or any portion thereof) without the lessors’ written consent. - Any use of the premises in a manner not expressly permitted by the lease.

Discovery of the Alleged Violation

• During an annual inspection by the lessors (conducted through their attorney-in-fact), it was found that:

- Two rooms on the second floor and parts of the living and dining areas had been converted into bed spaces. - Adoracion Penalver - Josefina Penalver - Lourdes Sulaput - Gaudiosa Reyes - Evelyn Reyes - Adora Cruz - Neptali - Cesar Penaranda - Adoracion Penalver, an employee of NAWASA, initially occupied one of the rooms with her sister but later vacated, with Mallarte’s daughter taking her place on the same day.

Respondents’ Action and Allegations

• Based on the inspection findings, the lessors alleged that the petitioner violated the lease agreement by:

- Accepting boarders in the apartment without obtaining their written consent, which they equated to a form of subleasing.

Petitioner’s Defense

• Mallarte contended that:

- The boarders were his relatives (nephew, nieces, grandchildren, or other kin) or were students at Far Eastern University. - Accepting boarders did not entail the surrender of his lease rights nor did it fall under the definition of subleasing.

Issue:

• Whether the petitioner’s act of accepting boarders in the leased apartment amounted to a violation of the lease provision that expressly forbade subleasing or assignment of any part of the premises.
• Whether the presence of boarders (lodgers) should legally be equated with subleasing, considering the differing legal implications on possession and control of the premises.
• Whether the respondents were justified in filing an ejectment complaint based on their interpretation of the lease agreement violations.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)