Acab V Ca 241 Scra 546
The father of the petitioners and private respondent, who was his neighbour, had a verbal lease agreement over a residential lot which the former owned and by which the latter has occupied and paid monthly rentals thereof.
After some time, the petitioners, having purchased the subject lot from their father, informed private respondent of termination of the lease contract at the end of the month, and has given private respondent time to vacate the premises. For refusal of private respondents to vacate, petitioners referred the matter to Lupon, but which was never resolved, prompting petitioners to file an ejectment case.
The MTC and RTC decided in favour of the petitioners but the appellate court dismissed the complaint on the reason that the petitioners failed to prove ownership of the subject lot that their claim of need to use the land is not substantiated and the ejectment based only the termination of monthly lease agreement is not justified. Hence, the recourse to the Supreme Court.
Whether or not private respondent may legally be ejected from the subject property on the sole basis of the expiration of the verbal lease agreement under which rentals are paid monthly.
Yes. The Supreme Court applied Section 1687 in relation to Section 1673 of the Civil Code wherein in effect, it held that lease agreements with no specified period, but in which rentals are paid monthly, are considered to be on a month-to-month basis. They are for a definite period and expire after the last day of any given thirty-day period, upon proper demand and notice by the lessor to vacate.
Therefore, the verbal lease agreement entered into by private respondent and petitionersâ€™ father has been validly terminated, in which case there is sufficient cause of ejectment under Section 5(f) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 which provides also that expiration of the period of lease contract is one of the grounds for judicial ejectment.