This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Republic Act No. 9161,[82] otherwise known as the "Rental Reform Act of 2002," was the rent control law in force at the time the complaint for unlawful detainer was filed. Sec. 7(e) thereof allows for judicial ejectment of a lessee on the ground of expiration of the period of the lease contract. As already discussed, the month-to-month lease contract of petitioner expired on April 30, 2004 and was not renewed by respondents; hence, the latter acted well within their rights to file a complaint for unlawful detainer.[83] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that there was an agreement to pay monthly rent after April 15, 1996,[18] the implied renewal of the expired lease contract was still for a definite period.[19] "A month-to- month lease under Article 1687 x x x expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period, upon proper demand and notice by the lessor to vacate."[20] Since there was proper notice given after the thirty-day lease periods ended December 15, 1997 (prior to the agreement to vacate made before the barangay court) and January 15, 1998 (subsequent to such agreement), petitioner's "right to stay in the premises came to an end."[21] Indeed, private respondent's tolerance of petitioner's possession de facto was formally withdrawn on January 20, 1998. Continued possession by the latter had become unlawful upon his refusal to comply with the demand to vacate. "[E]jectment of the lessee may be ordered."[22] | |||||