G.R. No. 1743 : August 12, 1905

FACTS:
On April 1, 1886, Jose Soriano (lessor) and F. L. Roxas (lessee) entered into a contract of lease for a house in Binondo, Manila. The original first clause provided for a lease of indefinite duration, terminable by either party upon three months’ notice. This clause was subsequently canceled and substituted by a note signed by both parties, stating: “The lease shall begin July 1 of the present year and its duration shall be for an indefinite period, the lessee reserving to himself solely the right to abandon the premises on three months’ notice.” Roxas occupied the property until his death in January 1897, after which his heirs continued in possession under the same lease. On August 2, 1902, Soriano served the heirs with a written notice to vacate the premises within forty days. Upon their refusal, Soriano filed an action for ejectment. The lower court ruled in favor of Soriano, holding that the lease could be terminated upon forty days’ notice. The heirs appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the lease contract, which was for an indefinite period and terminable solely at the will of the lessee (F. L. Roxas), continued in force and bound the lessor after the death of the lessee, such that the lessor could not terminate it against the lessee’s heirs.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, ruling in favor of the lessor, Jose Soriano.

The Court held that the substituted clause created a lease for an indefinite period at the will of the tenant (F. L. Roxas). However, such a lease, being personal and dependent on the will of the lessee, terminated upon the lessee’s death. The Court, applying the laws in force prior to the Civil Code (the Partidas) and supported by commentaries on Roman law and the French Civil Code, ruled that a lease made to continue during the pleasure of the lessee does not pass to his heirs but ends with his death.

Consequently, upon Roxas’s death in 1897, the original lease expired. The heirs’ continued occupation was governed by the Civil Code (which was then in effect) under the rules of tacit renewal. Since the rent was payable monthly and the property was urban, the heirs were considered tenants from month to month under Article 1581 of the Civil Code. As such monthly tenants, the lessor had the right to terminate their occupancy at the end of any month upon proper notice. Therefore, Soriano’s notice to vacate was valid, and he was entitled to possession of the property.