Lopez v. Fajardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leonor Sobrepena and her kin owned a 2-door apartment. Respondent Leticia Fajardo occupied one unit under a verbal month-to-month lease. On April 30, 1999, the property was sold to Leticia and Cecilia Lopez (the Lopez sisters). Petitioner Tristan Lopez, as attorney-in-fact for the Lopez sisters, filed an ejectment complaint against respondent on March 31, 2000, for non-payment of rentals from May 1999 to February 2000. The parties settled, with respondent paying ₱35,000.00, and the case was terminated on June 28, 2000. Respondent continued to occupy the premises. Procedural History: In July 2000, respondent filed a complaint for nullification of the deed of sale and for the right of first refusal. Respondent also failed to pay rentals for July and August 2000. Petitioner sent a letter dated August 18, 2000, terminating the lease contract effective August 31, 2000, and giving respondent a grace period until September 30, 2000, to vacate, conditioned on payment of July and August rentals. Respondent remitted a check on September 21, 2000, for ₱30,000.00, covering rentals from July 2000 to September 2000 and advance rentals up to July 2001. Petitioner, through counsel, rejected the check on September 21, 2000, stating rentals were only due for July, August, and September 2000, and respondent was expected to vacate by October 1, 2000. After barangay conciliation failed, petitioner filed a second ejectment complaint on October 25, 2000. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondent to vacate and pay back rentals and attorney's fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that the ejectment case was premature as respondent had only two months of rental arrears when the demand letter was sent, citing Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 (BP 877). The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in finding the ejectment case premature, as he had raised two grounds: failure to pay rentals for three months AND expiration of the lease contract.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner established a valid ground for the ejectment of respondent based on (1) arrears in payment of rent and (2) expiration of the lease contract. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision and dismissing the ejectment case.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 13, 2003, is SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, as affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner established a valid ground for ejectment based on arrears and expiration: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court found that two grounds for judicial ejectment under Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 (BP 877) were established. Firstly, the ground of arrears in payment of rent for a total of three months was met. Although respondent remitted a check covering July, August, and September 2000 rentals, petitioner's counsel communicated on September 21, 2000, that rentals were only due for July, August, and September 2000, and respondent was expected to vacate by October 1, 2000. The Court noted that respondent never questioned the claim of failure to pay rentals for July, August, and September before the MeTC or RTC. Secondly, and crucially, the ground of expiration of the lease contract was also established. The Court reiterated that under Article 1687 of the Civil Code, if the rent is paid monthly and no period is fixed, the lease is understood to be from month to month. Such a lease has a definite period and expires at the end of any given month upon proper notice and demand by the lessor to vacate. The letter dated August 18, 2000, from petitioner to respondent, informing her of the termination of the lease contract effective August 31, 2000, constituted a valid notice of expiration. Therefore, the appellate court erred in ignoring the ground of expiration for ejectment.
Main Doctrine
A month-to-month lease, under Article 1687 of the Civil Code, is a lease with a definite period that expires at the end of any given month upon proper notice and demand by the lessor to vacate, and this expiration constitutes a valid ground for judicial ejectment under the Rent Control Law, notwithstanding the existence of other grounds such as rental arrearages.