This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In this light, Zosima's contention that although the lease contract had already expired, the principle of implied new lease or tacita reconduccion existed by operation of law between the periods of April 2000 and June 2003 is not correct. An implied new lease will set in if it is shown that: (a) the term of the original contract of lease has expired; (b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate; and (c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor. This acquiescence may be inferred from the failure of the lessor to serve notice to vacate upon the lessee.[15] This principle is provided for under Article 1670 of the Civil Code: Article 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived. [emphasis and underscoring ours] | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not swayed. Under Article 1670, an implied new lease will set in if it is shown that: (a) the term of the original contract of lease has expired; (b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate; and (c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor. This acquiescence may be inferred from the failure of the lessor to serve notice to vacate upon the lessee.[32] | |||||