G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995
LOIDA, BIENVENIDO & JOSELITO, all surnamed ACAB, CARINA VALERIO & ESMERALDA ZAPANTA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AMPARO C. VILLANUEVA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are the owners of a residential lot in Kalookan City, having purchased it from their father, Jose R. Acab. In 1942, Jose Acab entered into a verbal lease agreement with private respondent Amparo C. Villanueva and her deceased husband, obliging them to pay a monthly rental of fifty pesos (P50.00). On April 10, 1991, petitioners’ counsel sent a letter to the Villanueva spouses, informing them that petitioners were the new registered owners and that they were no longer interested in renewing the lease contract, demanding that the premises be vacated within three months. Despite receipt, private respondent (then widowed) refused to vacate. Petitioners filed a complaint for ejectment with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Kalookan City, which ruled in their favor, holding that the month-to-month lease was terminable at the end of each month at the lessor’s option. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the ejectment case, reasoning that petitioners failed to prove they did not own other available residential units in Kalookan City, making their claim of need unsubstantiated, and that ejectment based solely on termination of a month-to-month lease was not justified.

ISSUE

Whether private respondent may legally be ejected from the subject property on the sole basis of the expiration of the verbal lease agreement under which rentals are paid monthly.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and reinstated the decisions of the MTC and RTC. The Court held that a lease agreement with no specified period but with monthly rentals is considered a month-to-month lease under Article 1687 of the Civil Code, which is a lease with a definite period. Such a lease expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period upon proper demand and notice by the lessor to vacate. Since the lease in this case was month-to-month and proper notice of non-renewal and demand to vacate was given, the lease was validly terminated. Ejectment is justified under Section 5(f) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 (the Rent Control Act), which allows ejectment upon “expiration of the period of the lease contract.” Furthermore, as a lease with a definite period, it falls within the exception in Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, making Article 1673(1) of the Civil Code applicable, which allows judicial ejectment when the fixed period has expired.