GR 85108; (October, 1989) (Digest)
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 expressly prohibited subleasing or assigning any portion of the premises without the lessors’ written consent, with violation being a ground for ejectment. During an inspection in June 1979, the Gopiaos discovered that Mallarte had accommodated eight boarders in various rooms and spaces within the apartment. Alleging a violation of the contract, 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 the ejectment suit was precipitated by his refusal to agree to a rental increase demanded by the lessors. The City Court, Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals all ruled in favor of the Gopiaos, holding that Mallarte’s acceptance of boarders constituted a violation of the lease prohibition against subleasing, and ordered his ejectment.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s act of accepting boarders in the leased apartment, without the lessors’ written consent, constitutes a violation of the lease contract’s prohibition against subleasing, thereby justifying judicial ejectment.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Vicente Mallarte. The Court held that accepting boarders does not equate to subleasing under the terms of the contract. A sublease involves a grant by the tenant of an interest in the premises less than his own, accompanied by a surrender of possession and control over at least a portion of the property. In contrast, a boarder or lodger arrangement does not involve such a surrender; the lessee retains actual possession, control, and a reversionary interest in the entire premises, merely providing meals and/or lodging for a price.
The legal logic is anchored on the distinct meaning of “sublet” and the principle that covenants restricting alienation, like prohibitions against subletting, are construed strictly and not favored by the courts. Jurisprudence and legal authorities consistently differentiate between subletting and taking in boarders, with the latter generally not constituting a violation of a covenant against subletting. Since the lease contract did not explicitly prohibit accepting boarders, and no law (such as Batas Pambansa Blg. 25) forbade it, Mallarte’s actions did not breach the agreement. Consequently, the lessors had no valid cause of action for ejectment. The decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside and the ejectment complaint was dismissed.