[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
185 views2 pages

Lopez vs. Umale-Cosme

The petitioner Hernania Lopez leased an apartment unit owned by the respondent Gloria Umale-Cosme on a month-to-month basis, paying 1,340 PHP monthly in rent as of 1999. In April 1999, the respondent filed an unlawful detainer complaint against the petitioner for expiration of the lease contract and nonpayment of rent since December 1998. The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondent, but the RTC reversed, finding the contract lacked a definite period. However, the CA reversed again, finding the lease was month-to-month based on the petitioner's admission, so the period expired each month. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, finding that where a lease is verbal and monthly, the period

Uploaded by

MAry Jovan Pangan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
185 views2 pages

Lopez vs. Umale-Cosme

The petitioner Hernania Lopez leased an apartment unit owned by the respondent Gloria Umale-Cosme on a month-to-month basis, paying 1,340 PHP monthly in rent as of 1999. In April 1999, the respondent filed an unlawful detainer complaint against the petitioner for expiration of the lease contract and nonpayment of rent since December 1998. The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondent, but the RTC reversed, finding the contract lacked a definite period. However, the CA reversed again, finding the lease was month-to-month based on the petitioner's admission, so the period expired each month. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, finding that where a lease is verbal and monthly, the period

Uploaded by

MAry Jovan Pangan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Hernania “Lani” Lopez, petitioner, vs.

Gloria Umale-Cosme,
respondent.
G.R. No. 171891
February 24, 2009
Puno, C.j.:

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking a review of the Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 82808 reversing the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 218, Quezon City,
Respondent Gloria Umale-Cosme is the owner of an apartment building at 15 Sibuyan Street,
Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, while the petitioner is a lessee of one of the units therein. She
was paying a monthly rent of P1,340.00 as of 1999.
On April 19, 1999, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioner before
Branch 43 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City on the grounds of expiration of
contract of lease and nonpayment of rentals from December 1998. In her answer, petitioner
denied the allegations.
On March 19, 2003, the MeTC, Branch 43, rendered judgement in favor of respondent.
On appeal, the RTC reversed the decision f the MeTC and ruled that the contract of lease
between respondent and petitioner lacked a definite period. According to the RTC, the lessee
may not be ejected on the ground of termination of the period until the judicial authorities have
fixed such period.
Respondent’s Motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
Aggrieved, respondent repaired to the CA, which found merit in her appeal, thus:
“It is worthy to note that in her answer, respondent admitted the allegations in paragraph 5 of
the complaint that the apartment unit was leased to her by petitioner on a month to month
basis.”
Article 1673(1) of the Civil Code provides that the lessor may judicially eject the lessee when the
period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of leases under Articles 1682 and
1687, has expired. Article 1687 of the same Code provides that if the period for the lease has
not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon annual; from
month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week; if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if
the rent is to paid daily.
The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. As a consequence, petitioner filed the
instant petition for review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may be ejected on the ground of termination of lease of contract?
RULING:
It is well-settled that where a contract of lease is verbal and on a monthly basis, the lease is one
with a definite period which expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period. In the recent
case of Wee v. De Castro where the lease contract between the parties did not stipulate a fixed
period, we ruled:
“The rentals being paid monthly, the period of such lease is deemed terminated at the end of
each month. Thus, respondents have every right to demand the ejectment of petitioners at the
end of each month, the contract having expired by operation of law.

You might also like