G.R. No. 85108 October 4, 1989
VICENTE MALLARTE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Sps. NICOLAS GOPIAO & RAMONA CALMA GOPIAO, represented by their attorney-in-fact, NICOLAS GOPIAO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

On June 1, 1972, respondents spouses Gopiao leased an apartment in Sampaloc, Manila, to petitioner Vicente Mallarte on a month-to-month basis. The lease contract contained explicit stipulations in Paragraphs 8 and 9 prohibiting the sublease, assignment, or transfer of the premises or any portion thereof without the lessors’ written consent, with violation being a ground for ejectment. During an inspection in June 1979, the lessors discovered that Mallarte had accommodated eight boarders or bed spacers in various rooms of the apartment. Alleging a violation of the contract’s anti-subletting clause, the lessors demanded that Mallarte vacate the premises and subsequently filed an ejectment case.
Mallarte defended his actions by claiming the boarders were his relatives who were students, and he argued that the ejectment suit was merely a retaliatory act after he refused the lessors’ demand to double the monthly rental. The City Court, Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals uniformly ruled that Mallarte violated the lease agreement by subleasing portions of the apartment, ordering his ejectment. Mallarte elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Did the petitioner’s act of accepting boarders or bed spacers in the leased apartment constitute a violation of the contractual prohibition against subleasing, thereby justifying his ejectment?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic centers on the clear distinction between “subletting” and “accepting boarders.” A sublease involves a grant by the tenant of an interest in the leased premises less than his own, accompanied by a surrender of possession and control over at least a portion of the property to the sublessee, who then holds a landlord-tenant relationship with the original lessee.
In contrast, accepting boarders or lodgers does not constitute such a surrender. The lessee retains overall possession, control, and the character of the primary occupant; the boarder merely receives lodging, often with meals, for a price. Citing established jurisprudence and legal authorities (such as 51C C.J.S. 108 and 49 Am. Jur. 2d), the Court emphasized that covenants against subletting, being restraints on alienation, are construed strictly and with jealousy. Permitting lodgers has generally not been held to violate such covenants. Since the lease contract only prohibited subletting and assignment, and not the taking in of boarders, Mallarte’s actions did not breach the agreement. Consequently, the lessors had no valid cause of action for judicial ejectment on that ground. The complaint was dismissed.