Case Digest: Peña vs Spouses Tolentino
G.R. No. 155227-28, February 9, 2011
EMILIANA G. PEÑA, AMELIA C. MAR, and CARMEN REYES, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ARMANDO TOLENTINO AND LETICIA TOLENTINO, Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioners are lessees of three distinct and separate parcels of land owned by the respondents. In 1995, the respondents wrote a demand letter to each of the petitioners, informing that they were terminating the respective month-to-month lease contracts and demanding that the petitioners vacate and remove their houses from their respective premises.
After the petitioners refused to vacate within the period allowed, the respondents filed three distinct complaints for ejectment. The petitioners uniformly contended that the respondents could not summarily eject them from their leased premises without circumventing Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 20 and related laws.
The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondents. The RTC affirmed the MeTC’s holding that the leases expired at the end of every month, upon demand to vacate by the respondents. However, it held that considering that the respondents had allowed the petitioners to construct their own houses of good materials on the premises, and that the petitioners had been occupants for over 30 years.
The CA reinstated the MTC decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ejectment is illegal.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Lease
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. However, their reliance on P.D. 20 is futile and misplaced because that law had been repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, which was extended by BP 877.
Under Section 5 (f) of B.P. Blg. 877, the expiration of the period of the lease is among the grounds for judicial ejectment of a lessee. In this case, because no definite period was agreed upon by the parties, their contracts of lease being oral, the leases were deemed to be for a definite period, considering that the rents agreed upon were being paid monthly, and terminated at the end of every month, pursuant to Article 1687.
DENIED.
EMILIANA G. PEÑA, AMELIA C. MAR, and CARMEN REYES, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ARMANDO TOLENTINO AND LETICIA TOLENTINO, Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioners are lessees of three distinct and separate parcels of land owned by the respondents. In 1995, the respondents wrote a demand letter to each of the petitioners, informing that they were terminating the respective month-to-month lease contracts and demanding that the petitioners vacate and remove their houses from their respective premises.
After the petitioners refused to vacate within the period allowed, the respondents filed three distinct complaints for ejectment. The petitioners uniformly contended that the respondents could not summarily eject them from their leased premises without circumventing Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 20 and related laws.
The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondents. The RTC affirmed the MeTC’s holding that the leases expired at the end of every month, upon demand to vacate by the respondents. However, it held that considering that the respondents had allowed the petitioners to construct their own houses of good materials on the premises, and that the petitioners had been occupants for over 30 years.
The CA reinstated the MTC decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ejectment is illegal.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Lease
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. However, their reliance on P.D. 20 is futile and misplaced because that law had been repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, which was extended by BP 877.
Under Section 5 (f) of B.P. Blg. 877, the expiration of the period of the lease is among the grounds for judicial ejectment of a lessee. In this case, because no definite period was agreed upon by the parties, their contracts of lease being oral, the leases were deemed to be for a definite period, considering that the rents agreed upon were being paid monthly, and terminated at the end of every month, pursuant to Article 1687.
DENIED.
