505 Phil. 733
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Please be informed that my aunts (Leticia and Cecilia Lopez) have already decided to terminate our monthly lease contract effective midnight of August 31, 2000, the very time our oral lease contract shall expire. Hence, there shall be no more renewal of our lease contract on a month-to-month basis upon its expiration by said date. Thus, we expect you to eventually vacate said leased premises by that time.On September 21, 2000, respondent remitted to petitioner Security Bank Check No. 0121467 dated September 20, 2000 in the amount of P30,000.00 representing payment of the rentals in arrears for July 2000, August 2000 and September 2000, and advance rentals for October 2000 up to July 2001, without prejudice to the outcome of Civil Case No. 00-97105.[6]
Considering however, time constraint, my aunts thought of giving you a grace period of one (1) month, or until 30 September 2000 within which to vacate the premises conditioned of course on your immediate payment of the July and August 2000 rentals of P2,500.00 each, or a total sum of P5,000.00. Should this total unpaid rental of P5,000.00 be not paid immediately, then the grace period of until September 30, 2000 shall no longer be offered in which case you shall be considered (as) an interloper to the property by September 1, 2000. In such an event, you should immediately vacate the same because of the expiration of the lease contract and your non-payment of rentals for two (2) months.
Please be guided accordingly. (Emphasis supplied; underscoring in the original)
Respondent, in her Answer with Counterclaim for damages,[10] alleged that the complaint for ejectment (second) stated no valid cause of action, she contending that petitioner's claim of expiration of the verbal monthly lease was misplaced as she never recognized the Lopez sisters as her true lessors and that her payment of the amount of P35,000.00 in connection with the first ejectment complaint was meant to be under protest and without prejudice to the outcome of Civil Case No. 00-97105.
- P7,500.00 as her rental arrears/back rentals from July 2000 up to September 2000 plus the present monthly rental of P2,500.00 from October 2000 (or the corresponding yearly rental increase thereof, if any) until herein [respondent] shall have actually vacated the leased premises;
- P50,000.00 as moral damages;
- P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- P30,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
- Costs of suit.
x x x
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioner] and against the [respondent] ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under her:Respondent appealed the MeTC decision to the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC) which, by Decision[13] dated June 7, 2002, affirmed in toto that of the trial court, it holding as follows:
- To immediately vacate the subject premises describe[d] as No. 1328 Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz, Manila and surrender its peaceful possession to the [petitioner];
- To pay [petitioner] the amount of P7,500.00 as back rentals covering the period from July 2000 to September 2000; and to pay [petitioner] the amount of P2,500.00 monthly as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the subject premises known as No. 1328 Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, beginning October 2000 and every month thereafter until [respondent] shall have actually vacated the same;
- To pay [petitioner] the sum of P5,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of the suit.
Before the Court of Appeals (CA), respondent appealed via Petition for Review with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Ante Order,[14] assigning to the RTC the following errors:x x x
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear then that [petitioner] allowed [respondent] to continue to occupy the subject premises on a month-to-month rental terminable at the end of each month, until the [petitioner] sent [respondent] a notice to vacate the subject premises on August 18, 2000. There is no dispute that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the [petitioner] and the [respondent] that ended on August 31, 2000, as evidenced by [petitioner's] letter dated August 18, 2000. As the rent was paid on a monthly basis, the period of the lease was considered as on a month-to-month basis in accordance with Article 1687 of the New Civil Code.
It is a lease with a definite period. In the case at bar, since the [respondent] stopped payment of her monthly rentals since July 2000 up to September 2000, then the lease on said property immediately expired and terminated upon the letter of demand made by the [petitioner] on the [respondent] to vacate the subject premises as of August 2000. Hence, [respondent's] right to stay in the premises came to an end as of August 2000.
x x x (Underscoring supplied).
SECTION 5. Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. - Ejectment shall be allowed on the following grounds:The first emphasized-underscored ground for judicial ejectment - failure to pay rental arrearages for a total of three months - was established by petitioner.
(a) Assignment of lease or subleasing of residential units in whole or in part, including the acceptance of boarders or bedspacers, without the written consent of the owner/ lessor.
(b) Arrears in payment of rent for a total of three (3) months: Provided, That in case of refusal by the lessor to accept payment of the rental agreed upon, the lessee may either deposit, by way of consignation, the amount in court, or with the city or municipal treasurer, as the case may be, or in a bank in the name of and with notice to the lessor, within one month after the refusal of the lessor to accept payment.
The lessee shall thereafter deposit the rental within ten days of every current month. Failure to deposit rentals for three months shall constitute a ground for ejectment. If an ejectment case is already pending, the court upon proper motion may order the lessee or any person or persons claiming under him to immediately vacate the leased premises without prejudice to the continuation of ejectment proceedings. At any time, the lessor may upon authority of the court, withdraw the rentals deposited.
The lessor, upon authority of the court in case of consignation and upon joint affidavit by him and the lessee to be submitted to the city or municipal treasurer and to the bank where deposit was made, shall be allowed to withdraw the deposits.
(c) Legitimate need of owner/lessor to repossess his property for his own use or for the use of any immediate member of his family as a residential unit, such owner or immediate member not being the owner of any available residential units within the same city or municipality: Provided, however, That the lease for a definite period has expired: Provided further that the lessor has given the lessee formal notice three (3) months in advance of the lessor's intention to repossess the property: and Provided, finally, That the owner/lessor is prohibited from leasing the residential unit or allowing its use by a third party for at least one year.
(d) Absolute ownership by the lessee of another dwelling unit in the same city or municipality which he may lawfully use as his residence: Provided, That the lessee shall have been formally notified by the lessor of the intended ejectment three months in advance.
(e) Need of the lessor to make necessary repairs of the leased premises which is the subject of an existing order of condemnation by appropriate authorities concerned in order to make the said premises safe and habitable: Provided, That after said repair, the lessee ejected shall have the first preference to lease the same premises: Provided, however, That the new rental shall be reasonable commensurate with the expenses incurred for the repair of the said residential unit; and Provided, finally, That if the residential unit is condemned or completely demolished, the lease of the new building will no longer subject to the provisions of this Act.
(f) Expiration of the period of the lease contract.
No lessor or his successor-in-interest shall be entitled to eject the lessee upon the ground that the leased premises has been sold or mortgaged to a third person regardless of whether the lease or mortgage is registered or not. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
ARTICLE 1687. If the period of the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and form day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. If the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In case of daily rent, the courts may also fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)A month-to-month lease under Article 1687 is a lease with a definite period and expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period, upon proper demand and notice by the lessor to vacate.[18]
Under the Rent Control Law, the prohibition against the ejectment of a lessee by his lessor is not absolute. There are exceptions expressly provided by law, which include the expiration of a lease for a definite period. In the instant case, it was noted that the rentals were paid on a month-to-month basis. Thus, the lease could be validly terminated at the end of any given month upon prior notice to that effect on the lessee. After all, when the rentals are paid monthly, the lease is deemed to be for a definite period, i.e., it expires at the end of every month. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)[19]When petitioner then sent the August 18, 2000 letter to respondent informing her that the lease would be terminated effective at the end of the same month, it was well within his rights.