Vda. de Ordoñez v. Angkiangco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant occupied a house at 408 España Street, Manila, since February 1942, under a verbal lease agreement with a monthly rental of P20 (50% of the pre-invasion rent), payable within the first five days of the month. The lease had no fixed duration. Procedural History: The plaintiff notified the defendant three times to vacate the property: in March 1945, April 1945, and on June 1, 1945, via a letter (Exhibit A). As the defendant did not heed these repeated requests, the plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer case in the Municipal Court of Manila on July 2, 1945. The defendant appealed an adverse decision to the Court of First Instance, which, after trial, ruled against him, ordering him to vacate the property, pay monthly rentals of P50 from July 1945, and costs. The defendant appealed this decision. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant can be compelled to vacate the premises. Whether the defendant is liable for rentals for December 1944 and January 1945.
Ruling
The appealed decision is affirmed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of vacating the premises: The Court held that if there is no express agreement on the duration of a lease, it is understood to be a monthly lease when the rent is paid monthly. Article 1581 of the Civil Code states that in such cases, the lease ceases without the need for special notice upon the expiration of the term. The defendant received express notice on three occasions that the lease would terminate on June 30, 1945. Consequently, he could no longer legally occupy the property after this date. The lower court did not err in ordering him to vacate the premises. On the issue of rentals for December 1944 and January 1945: The Court found the defendant's contention that he cannot be judicially compelled to pay rentals for December 1944 and January 1945 to be well-founded. This is because the moratorium order in effect at that time provided for such a suspension of payments. The Court cited previous rulings in Cruz and Gumatay vs. Avila and De la Fuente and Teodoro vs. Jugo and Borromeo to support this position.
Main Doctrine
If there is no express agreement on the duration of a lease, it is considered a monthly lease when the rent is paid monthly, and the lease terminates without need for special notice upon the expiration of the term. A lease agreement terminates upon proper notice, and continued occupation thereafter is unlawful.