Photo from Pexels | Ivan Samkov
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the above-entitled case, the Supreme Court discussed the elements of an implied new lease under Article 1670 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit:
(a) the term of the original contract of lease has expired;
(b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate; and
(c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor.
In the above-entitled case, the Supreme Court discussed the elements of implied new lease under Article 1670 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
The case involved a parcel of land located in Pandacan, Manila. Records reveal that the Respondents’ father and uncle entered into a contract of lease with the spouses Rogelio and Anita Buce, herein Petitioner, over the subject land. Under the terms of the lease contract, the same shall be effective for a period of 15 years, subject to renewal for another 10 years under the same terms and conditions.
Before the end of the year 1991, respondents informed petitioner of the impending increase of rental to P1,576.58 effective January 1992. Despite such information, petitioner tendered checks in the amount of P400.00. As these checks were insufficient to cover the total amount of monthly rental payments due, respondents refused to accept the checks drawn in their names.
Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for specific performance with prayer for consignation against the respondents. During the pendency of said case, respondents sent a letter to petitioner which reminded her that their lease contract expired on June 1, 1994.
The trial court declared that the lease contract between the petitioner and the respondents was automatically renewed for another 10 years. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the petitioner to immediately vacate the leased premises on the ground of the lease contract’s expiration on June 1, 1994.
In the petition she filed with the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that there was an implied new lease between her and the respondents and therefore she has the right to remain in the leased premises.
Contrary to the petitioner’s claims, the Supreme Court ruled that the elements of an implied new lease are not extant in this case.
The provision on implied new lease or tacita reconduccion is found in Article 1670 of the Civil Code:
ART. 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived.
From the foregoing, it is clear that there is an implied renewal of the contract when the following elements concur:
(a) the term of the original contract of lease has expired;
(b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate; and
(c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor.
Article 1687 of the same Code provides for the determination of the period for which such implied lease is considered as valid, to wit:
ART. 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily.
In other words, the terms of such contract depend on the period that the lessee made the rental payments.
Respondents sent a notice to petitioner informing her of their intention not to renew the lease way back in 1993 after the filing of the specific performance case by petitioner. At this point, such notice constitutes a notice to vacate on the part of respondents as they were categorical in reminding petitioner that the contract had indeed expired; and by sending the same, it is clear that respondents intended to discontinue the juridical tie between them and petitioner as lessors and lessee. Such intention is further manifested by the filing of the case for recovery of possession following the ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 136913. In obvious terms, respondents did not consent to petitioner’s continued stay in the premises of the subject property. Her occupation therefore is by mere tolerance; deficient, however, of all the elements to constitute an implied new lease.
Moreover, the petitioner’s contention that she failed to receive such notice was belied by the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. Neither can respondents’ act of accepting rental payments be construed as their consent to the renewal of the lease. The simple reason is that the petitioner remained in possession of the subject land and, regardless of the outcome of their case, had to pay rentals to respondents for the use of the same.
Related Articles:
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
