Soriano v. Heirs of Roxas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 1, 1886, Jose Soriano (lessor) and F. L. Roxas (lessee) entered into a contract of lease for a house. The initial clause stipulated an indefinite period but required three months' notice for termination by either party. A subsequent note, signed by both parties, canceled and substituted the first clause, stating the lease was for an indefinite period, with the lessee solely reserving the right to abandon the premises on three months' notice. Procedural History: The lessee, Roxas, occupied the property until his death in January 1897. His heirs continued possession. On August 2, 1902, the lessor gave the heirs written notice to quit within forty days. The heirs refused, prompting the lessor to file an ejectment suit. The court below ruled in favor of the lessor, holding the lease terminable by the lessor upon forty days' notice. The heirs appealed. The Petition: The defendants-appellants argued that upon the death of the lessee, all his rights and obligations passed to his heirs, entitling them to occupy the property indefinitely as per the modified lease terms.
Issue(s)
Whether the lease, modified to grant the lessee the sole right to abandon the premises on three months' notice, terminates upon the death of the lessee. Whether the heirs of the lessee have the right to continue occupying the premises indefinitely after the lessee's death.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court below, holding that the lease terminated upon the death of the lessee, F. L. Roxas, in 1897. The continued occupation by the heirs constituted a tacit renewal as a month-to-month tenancy, making them subject to ejectment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the termination of the lease upon the death of the lessee: The Court agreed with the appellants that the modification of the lease made it a lease at the will of the tenant, meaning the tenant could occupy the property as long as he wished, provided he complied with the contract terms. However, the Court disagreed with the claim that this right extended indefinitely to the heirs. The lease was made prior to the Civil Code, thus governed by laws in force before 1889, specifically The Partidas. The Court found no support in The Partidas for the proposition that a lease at the lessee's pleasure continues indefinitely for his heirs. Escriche's Dictionary of Legislation and Jurisprudence, cited by the Court, states that a lease not made for a definite time, but during the pleasure of the lessee, terminates upon the death of the lessee, for the same reason that a lease during the pleasure of the lessor terminates upon the lessor's death. This principle is supported by Roman law (Digest, Book 19, Title 2, Law 4) and French law (Article 1742 of the Code Napoleon and commentaries thereon). The Court concluded that the lease terminated at the death of Roxas in 1897. On the right of the heirs to occupy the premises indefinitely: Following the termination of the lease upon Roxas's death in 1897, the Civil Code was in effect. The heirs' continued occupation of the property was considered a tacit renewal as described in Article 1566 of the Civil Code. Given that the original lease stipulated monthly rent and the property was urban, Article 1581 of the Civil Code became applicable. This article implies that a lease for a fixed term, if tacitly renewed, becomes a lease from month to month. Therefore, the heirs were merely tenants from month to month after 1897 and could be ejected at the end of any month. The plaintiff was entitled to possession when the action was brought.
Main Doctrine
A lease for an indefinite period, where the lessee reserves the sole right to abandon the premises on three months' notice, terminates upon the death of the lessee, and the continued occupation by the heirs constitutes a tacit renewal as a month-to-month tenancy.