Zablan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The private respondents, owners of a residential apartment building, leased unit 317-B to the petitioner on a month-to-month basis since 1969. In 1979, the lessors requested the petitioner vacate the premises by May 31, 1979, as their son, who had recently married, needed the unit for his family's residence. The petitioner initially refused, citing a lack of alternative housing, and despite a subsequent demand, failed to vacate, prompting the lessors to file an unlawful detainer action. 2. Procedural History: The City Court of Quezon City dismissed the unlawful detainer case filed by the lessors. Upon appeal, the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) reversed the city court's decision, ordering the petitioner to vacate and pay rent and attorney's fees. The petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. This petition for review on certiorari followed. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily arguing that the verbal month-to-month lease agreement had not expired within the meaning of Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25. She contends that Section 6 of BP Blg. 25 suspends Article 1673(1) of the Civil Code, and consequently Article 1687, thereby preventing termination of the lease based on expiration. The petition also raises other assignments of error concerning compliance with procedural requirements and factual findings, which the Supreme Court finds untenable or irrelevant.
Issue(s)
Whether the period of a verbal lease agreement on a month-to-month basis has expired within the meaning of Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25. Whether Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25 suspends Article 1687 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The petitioner is ordered to vacate the premises. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the period of a verbal lease agreement on a month-to-month basis has expired within the meaning of Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25: The Court ruled in the affirmative. Pursuant to Article 1687 of the Civil Code, a lease with a monthly rent and no fixed period is considered a month-to-month lease. Such a lease is terminable at the end of any month. When the private respondents gave the petitioner notice to vacate on or before May 31, 1979, the contract of lease was deemed to have expired as of the end of that month. This interpretation aligns with previous rulings in Baens v. Court of Appeals and Rivera v. Florendo, where it was held that even verbal month-to-month agreements can be terminated at the end of a month if the lessor needs the property for statutory grounds under Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25, after proper notice. On whether Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25 suspends Article 1687 of the Civil Code: The Court clarified that Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25 only suspends Article 1673(1) of the Civil Code, not Article 1687. The suspension of Article 1673(1) means that an owner/lessor cannot eject a tenant solely based on the expiration of the lease period as determined under Article 1687, independently of the grounds provided in Batas Pambansa Bilang 25. However, Article 1687 itself remains in effect, allowing for the determination of the lease period. Therefore, the determination of the lease period under Article 1687 is still valid, and the lease can be considered expired at the end of a month if the conditions under Section 5(c) of BP 25 are met and proper notice is given.
Main Doctrine
A verbal contract of lease on a month-to-month basis is considered to have expired at the end of any month, provided the lessor has given the lessee the required advance notice to vacate, and the lessor needs the property for his own use or for the use of an immediate member of his family, in accordance with Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 25.