GR 1118; (August, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1118 : August 6, 1903
VICENTE GONZALEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TELESFORO CRISANTO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
On April 4, 1891, a contract of lease was executed for a house on San Sebastian Street, Quiapo, for the purpose of establishing a bakery. The lessee was Telesforo Crisanto, and the lessor was represented by the procurator of the Augustinian friars. The term was three years, prorogable for another three years, with a monthly rent of 50 pesos. The contract stipulated that the lessor could not evict the tenant provided rent was promptly paid.
After the initial and renewal terms expired, Crisanto remained in possession, continuing to pay the monthly rent of 50 pesos. On February 7, 1902, Vicente Gonzalez (successor-in-interest) formally notified Crisanto that to continue the lease, he must pay an increased rent of $150 gold per month starting March 1, 1902, or vacate the premises. Crisanto refused the new terms, insisting on compliance with the original contract.
Gonzalez filed an action for unlawful detainer in the justice’s court to recover possession and collect the increased rent from March 1, 1902. The court ruled in favor of Gonzalez. Crisanto appealed to the Court of First Instance, which affirmed the judgment. Crisanto also filed a separate action for specific performance of the 1891 lease contract or for damages, which was dismissed. Crisanto appealed both decisions.
ISSUE:
What is the legal effect of the tenant’s continued possession and payment of rent after the expiration of the fixed term in the original contract of lease?
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts. The Court held that after the fixed term of the original lease expired, the tenant’s continued possession with the acquiescence of the landlord constituted a tacit renewal of the contract. However, pursuant to Articles 1566 and 1581 of the Civil Code, the period of this tacit renewal is not for a term equal to the original contract. Since the rent was paid monthly, the tacit renewal was on a month-to-month basis.
Consequently, the lease was terminable at the end of any month upon proper notice. The notice to quit or to accept new terms given on February 7, 1902, was valid and effectively terminated the month-to-month tenancy as of the end of that period (March 1, 1902). The action for unlawful detainer was therefore proper. The separate action for specific performance was correctly dismissed as the original contract had already expired and was replaced by the tacit month-to-month renewal.