Rivera v. Florendo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Felisa and Godofredo Rivera owned apartment units, including unit No. 2034 on Quirino Avenue, Manila. In 1965, private respondent Pacifico Aquino began occupying unit No. 2034 under a verbal lease agreement with the Riveras. While a monthly rent of P120.00 was agreed upon, no specific lease period was stipulated. The Riveras later needed to sell unit No. 2036 to pay a loan, leading them to move to a rented apartment in Makati. Procedural History: On January 24, 1980, the Riveras notified Aquino to vacate unit No. 2034 within ninety days. When Aquino refused, the Riveras filed an ejectment suit. The City Court of Manila ruled in favor of the Riveras on January 27, 1981. However, the Court of First Instance reversed this decision on appeal, dismissing the complaint and holding that the lease had not expired. The Riveras then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as involving a pure question of law. The Supreme Court accepted the petition and, after numerous delays and issues with respondent's counsel, eventually gave due course to the petition. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Court of First Instance's decision, arguing that the verbal lease agreement for unit No. 2034 had expired within the meaning of Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25. They contend that while Article 1687 of the Civil Code establishes a month-to-month lease for indefinite verbal agreements with monthly rent, and Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25 suspends Article 1673(1) regarding lease expiration as a ground for ejectment, it does not suspend Article 1687 itself. Therefore, they argue that a month-to-month lease, upon proper notice to vacate, is considered expired, allowing for ejectment under Section 5(c) due to the owner's need for the premises, a ground not present under the earlier Presidential Decree No. 20.
Issue(s)
Whether the period of the verbal lease agreement has expired within the meaning of Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25. Whether the lessor's need for the premises for their own use is a valid ground for ejectment in a month-to-month verbal lease agreement under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
Ruling
The petition is granted. Private respondent and all persons claiming under him are ordered to vacate the premises known as No. 2034 Quirino Avenue, Pandacan, Manila, and surrender possession thereof to petitioners. Private respondent is also ordered to pay petitioners the rental from January 1981 at P120.00 a month until the premises are vacated, P1,000.00 as attorney's fees, and treble costs. The decision is final and immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the period of the verbal lease agreement has expired within the meaning of Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It clarified that while Article 1673 of the Civil Code, concerning the expiration of the lease period as a ground for ejectment, is suspended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 for residential units, Article 1687 of the same Code, which provides that a lease where no period is fixed is considered month to month if rent is paid monthly, is not suspended. In this case, the verbal lease with monthly rent was considered a month-to-month lease. Upon giving the private respondent notice to vacate, the lease was deemed to have expired at the end of the month, consistent with the ruling in Baens v. Court of Appeals. The respondent court erred in suspending Article 1687 itself, thereby rendering Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 illusory for verbal, indefinite leases. On whether the lessor's need for the premises for their own use is a valid ground for ejectment in a month-to-month verbal lease agreement under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25: The Court held that Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 explicitly allows ejectment on the ground of the owner/lessor's need for the premises for their own use or that of an immediate family member. This provision was enacted to correct the hardship imposed by Presidential Decree No. 20, which did not recognize this ground. Therefore, even in a month-to-month verbal lease, if the lessor demonstrates a genuine need for the property and provides proper notice, ejectment is permissible under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. The respondent court's interpretation would make Section 5(c) ineffective for verbal, indefinite leases, which contradicts the legislative intent to provide relief to small landowners.
Main Doctrine
A verbal lease agreement for an indefinite period, where rent is paid monthly, is considered a lease from month to month. The lessor's need for the premises for their own use, as provided under Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, constitutes a valid ground for ejectment after proper notice, notwithstanding the suspension of Article 1673 of the Civil Code.