G.R. No. L-25604; April 30, 1969
PAULO RODRIGUEZ and ANTOLIN A. JARIOL, in their capacities as joint-executors of the estate of HUMILIANO RODRIGUEZ, deceased, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ABRAJANO & CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The joint executors of the Estate of Humiliano Rodriguez filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the Municipal Court of Cebu City against the lessee, Abrajano & Co., Inc., to recover possession of a leased lot and collect rentals, damages, and attorney’s fees. The defendant admitted the existence of an original ten-year written lease that had expired, after which it held the property on a month-to-month basis at a rental of P170.00 per month. The plaintiffs terminated the lease and demanded restoration of the property on April 24, 1963. The defendant invoked Article 1687 of the Civil Code. The Municipal Court, after the case was submitted on the pleadings, rendered judgment requiring the lessee to vacate and restore the premises at the end of one year from the finality of the decision, provided it continued to pay the monthly rent. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which confirmed the Municipal Court’s decision and ordered the lessee to vacate within one year from February 26, 1965. The lessee appealed again to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the courts below erred in granting the lessee only a one-year period to vacate the leased premises instead of a much longer period.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the decision. Article 1687 of the Civil Code confers discretion upon the courts to fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over a year on an expired lease paying rental on a monthly basis. The length of the extension is to be determined by prevailing circumstances, such as the time needed to find new premises and transfer, and the probable intent of the parties. The lower courts, being familiar with local conditions, should not be interfered with on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion. The lessee’s argument that it constructed a building assessed at P15,000.00 on the leased premises was insufficient to warrant a particular term of extension, as a lessee who builds knowing the lease’s expiration is expected to recoup improvement costs by that time. The lessee failed to justify a different standard of diligence or show similarity of circumstances to cases where longer periods were granted. Furthermore, the lessor’s death and the policy favoring speedy settlement of estates militated against prolonging the lease. No abuse of discretion was found.