GR 171891; (February, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171891 , February 24, 2009.
HERNANIA “LANI” LOPEZ, Petitioner, vs. GLORIA UMALE-COSME, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Gloria Umale-Cosme is the owner of an apartment building in Quezon City, and petitioner Hernania “Lani” Lopez is a lessee of one unit, paying a monthly rent of ₱1,340.00 as of 1999. On April 19, 1999, respondent filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on grounds of expiration of the lease contract and nonpayment of rentals from December 1998. Petitioner denied defaulting, claiming respondent did not collect rentals to make it appear she was in arrears, and alleged she had been depositing monthly rentals in a bank in trust for respondent since February 1999. The MeTC ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate, pay back rent, attorney’s fees, and costs. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, ruling the lease lacked a definite period and, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 (the Rent Control Act), a lessee cannot be ejected on the ground of expiration until the judicial authorities fix such period. The RTC also noted respondent had abandoned the nonpayment ground by stipulating on consignation during pre-trial. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding the lease was on a month-to-month basis (a definite period) and that proper notice to vacate was given, thus petitioner could be ejected.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that petitioner may be ejected on the ground of termination of the lease contract.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that where a contract of lease is verbal and rentals are paid monthly, the lease is on a month-to-month basis, which is a lease with a definite period that expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period. The provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 do not suspend the effects of Article 1687 of the Civil Code, which deems a lease without a fixed period as month-to-month if rent is paid monthly. Therefore, the lease had a definite period, and respondent had the right to eject petitioner upon expiration and after proper demand and notice to vacate. The Court found petitioner’s admission in her pleadings that she had been paying monthly rentals since 1975, establishing the month-to-month nature of the lease. Consequently, ejectment on the ground of termination of the lease period was proper.