GR L 199; (September, 1946) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-199; September 25, 1946
AMPARO C. VDA. DE ORDOÑEZ, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MAXIMO ANGKIANGCO (alias MAX JOLLY), defendant and appellant.
FACTS
The defendant has occupied house No. 408 on España Street, Manila, since February 1942 under a verbal contract of lease with no agreed-upon duration. The monthly rent was P20 (50 percent of the pre-invasion rent), payable within the first five days of each month. The plaintiff, on three occasions, notified the defendant to vacate the property because she needed it: first in March 1945 through Consuelo Casimiro; second in April 1945 through Dr. Ordoñez; and finally on June 1, 1945, through a letter (Exhibit A). As the defendant did not heed these repeated demands, the plaintiff filed the corresponding complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila on July 2, 1945. Against an adverse judgment, the defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance, which, after a hearing, rendered a judgment against him, ordering him to vacate the property, pay monthly rents of P50 from July 1945, and pay the costs. The defendant appealed. The amount of P50 as monthly rent was not challenged as erroneous in the appellant’s brief.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in ordering the defendant to vacate the property and pay the monthly rents.
RULING
The appealed judgment is affirmed with costs. According to Article 1581 of the Civil Code, if there is no express agreement on the duration of the lease, it is understood to be by the month when the rent is monthly, and “in any case, the lease ceases, without the need for a special demand, upon the expiration of the term.” Through express notification made on three occasions, the defendant’s lease terminated on June 30, 1945. He could no longer legally continue occupying the property. The lower court did not err in ordering him to vacate. The defendant’s contention that he cannot be judicially required to pay the rents corresponding to December 1944 and January 1945 is well-founded, as the moratorium order so provides (citing Cruz and Gumatay vs. Avila, 76 Phil., 133 and De la Fuente and Teodoro vs. Jugo and Borromeo, 76 Phil., 262).