Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    G.R. No. 155227 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ana G
    The petitioners were lessees of three parcels of land owned by the respondents under oral month-to-month lease agreements. The respondents sent letters terminating the leases effective September 15, 1995 and demanding the petitioners vacate by October 1st or pay increased rent. The petitioners argued the leases were for an indefinite period under P.D. 20 while the respondents argued P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, making the leases definite. The court found P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, so the month-to-month leases had a definite period and expiration was valid grounds for ejectment under the controlling law, B.P. Blg. 877

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 155227 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ana G
    138 views1 page
    The petitioners were lessees of three parcels of land owned by the respondents under oral month-to-month lease agreements. The respondents sent letters terminating the leases effective September 15, 1995 and demanding the petitioners vacate by October 1st or pay increased rent. The petitioners argued the leases were for an indefinite period under P.D. 20 while the respondents argued P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, making the leases definite. The court found P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, so the month-to-month leases had a definite period and expiration was valid grounds for ejectment under the controlling law, B.P. Blg. 877

    Original Title

    G.R.-No.-155227-Case-Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were lessees of three parcels of land owned by the respondents under oral month-to-month lease agreements. The respondents sent letters terminating the leases effective September 15, 1995 and demanding the petitioners vacate by October 1st or pay increased rent. The petitioners argued the leases were for an indefinite period under P.D. 20 while the respondents argued P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, making the leases definite. The court found P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, so the month-to-month leases had a definite period and expiration was valid grounds for ejectment under the controlling law, B.P. Blg. 877

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    138 views1 page

    G.R. No. 155227 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ana G
    The petitioners were lessees of three parcels of land owned by the respondents under oral month-to-month lease agreements. The respondents sent letters terminating the leases effective September 15, 1995 and demanding the petitioners vacate by October 1st or pay increased rent. The petitioners argued the leases were for an indefinite period under P.D. 20 while the respondents argued P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, making the leases definite. The court found P.D. 20 did not suspend Article 1687, so the month-to-month leases had a definite period and expiration was valid grounds for ejectment under the controlling law, B.P. Blg. 877

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    EMILIANA G. PEŇA, AMELIA C. MAR vs.

    SPOUSES ARMANDO TOLENTINO AND LETICIA


    TOLENTINO G.R. No. 155227-28 February 9, 2011

    FACTS: The petitioners are lessees of three distinct and separate parcels of land owned by the respondents.
    Based on the parties’ oral lease agreements, the petitioners agreed to pay monthly rents, pegged as of October
    9, 1995 at the following rates, namely: for Carmen Reyes, P570.00; for Amelia Mar, P840.00; and for
    Emiliana Peña,P480.00. On August 15, 1995, the respondents wrote a demand letter to each of the petitioners,
    informing that they were terminating the respective month-to-month lease contracts effective September 15,
    1995 and demanding that the petitioners vacate and remove their houses from their respective premises, with
    warning that should they not heed the demand, the respondents would charge them P3,000.00/month each as
    reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the premises from October 1, 1995 until they would
    actually vacate. After the petitioners refused to vacate within the period allowed, the respondents filed on
    October 9, 1995 three distinct complaints for ejectment against the petitioners in the Metropolitan Trial Court
    (MeTC) of Manila. The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) modified the
    MeTC’s decision. Both parties appealed by petition for review. The CA rendered judgment setting aside the
    decision of the RTC with modification.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the contracts of lease were for an indefinite period.

    HELD: The petitioners contend that their lease contracts were covered by P.D. No. 20, which suspended
    paragraph 1 of Article 1673, Civil Code that as a result, the expiration of the period of their leases was no
    longer a valid ground to eject them and that their leases should be deemed to be for an indefinite period. In
    refutation, the respondents argue that P.D. 20 suspended only Article 1673, not Article 1687, Civil Code that
    under Article 1687, a lease on a month-to-month basis was a lease with a definite period and that the
    petitioners could be ejected from the leased premises upon the expiration of the definite period, particularly as
    a demand to that effect was made. The petitioners’ contention is erroneous. It is clear, therefore, that B.P. Blg.
    877 was the controlling rental law when the complaints against the petitioners were filed on October 9, 1995.
    We note that on January 1, 2002, R.A. No. 9161 took effect. It’s Section 7(e) provided that the expiration of
    the period of the lease contract was still one of the grounds for judicial ejectment. Also, its Section 10 provided
    for the suspension of paragraph 1 of Article 1673 of the Civil Code. In several rulings, the Court held that
    Section 6 of B.P. Blg. 877 did not suspend the effects of Article 1687 of the Civil Code and that the only effect
    of the suspension of paragraph 1, Article 1673 of the Civil Code was that, independently of the grounds for
    ejectment enumerated in B.P. Blg. 877, the owner/lessor could not eject the tenant by reason of the expiration
    of the period of lease as fixed or determined under Article 1687 of the Civil Code. Consequently, the
    determination of the period of the lease could still be made in accordance with Article 1687. 

    You might also like