A contract of lease is a special form of contract in civil law. The Civil Code outlines a number of provisions that guide the parties and limit the stipulations they may agree upon. It specifies the rights and duties of the lessor and lessee, the rules on payment and ejectment. When the lease has a definite period, it ceases on the day fixed without need for a demand from the lessor [Article 1669]. The lessee, then, shall return the thing leased, as they received it, to the lessor [Article 1665]. If at the end of the contract, the lessor allows the lessee to enjoy the lease for 15 days, there arises an implied lease and the terms of the original contract are revived [Article 1670].
When there is an implied lease, the lease will continue based on the period of payment [Article 1687]. The implied lease is with a definite period terminable at the end of each month upon demand to vacate by the lessor. On the other hand, if the lessor refuses to renew the lease, it is necessary to furnish the lessee with a notice to vacate. If the lessee continues to possess the premises against the lessor’s will, the lessee would be holding the property illegally and a judicial action is filed. Under Article 1673, “[t]he lessor may judicially eject the lessee” if: [1] the agreed period expired; [2] the rent is not paid; [3] if the lessee violates any of the conditions of the contract; and [4] if the thing leased suffered deterioration due to use or service not stipulated.
May the lessor opt not to sue and instead use force to take possession after the expiration of the lease? This was the issue in CHJ Dev’t. Corp. v. Anicento, G.R. 224006 and Aniceto v. CHJ Dev’t. Corp., G.R. 224472, 06 July 2020. In 2003, Aniceto entered two successive lease contracts from CHJDC to operate a restaurant at Camp John Hay, Baguio City. While the lessor denied the request for extension, the lessee continued to operate up to February 2008. A demand to vacate was sent giving the lessee until March 2008 to remove everything. The lessee sued the lessor to stop the closure/ demolition of the restaurant. The Regional Trial Court issued 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order. No preliminary injunction was issued, but only the status quo order not to close the restaurant. In May 2008, the restaurant was demolished and the lessor argued the lessee has no cause of action because of a stipulation in allowing the lessor to forcibly take possession after its expiration. Later, the RTC declared that stipulation and demolition is void as it ignored the basic demands of due process, violated the rules on unlawful detainer and usurped the court power. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled the lessee had no clear right to retain possession on expired lease. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Aniceto argued that CJH-DC had no right to unilaterally take possession of the lease for being contrary to law and due process. It cannot take the law into its own hands. CJH-DC counters that stipulations allowing the eviction without court intervention is valid.
The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, in reciprocal obligations, the power to rescind the contract where a party incurs in default, is impliedly given to the injured party. In other words, it is not always necessary for the injured party to resort to court for rescission of the contract. As already held, judicial action is needed where there is absence of special provision in the contract granting a party the right of rescission. Judicial permission to cancel the contract was not necessary because of express stipulation that lessor can take-over possession of the leased premises in case of its violation, thereby cancelling the lease. There is no law against extrajudicial ejectment. In fact, stipulations may authorize the use of all necessary force just to repossess the premises. Where a lease expressly gives a landlord a right to use such reasonable force as is necessary in making re-entry and dispossessing a tenant, when the landlord becomes entitled to possession because of the termination of the term, the landlord can use force in making re-entry and dispossessing the tenant.” Citing the case of Republic v. Peralta, this Court upheld the contract provision as valid. Since such stipulations form the law between the parties, they must be respected. This provision is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.
As this Court has consistently held, the lessee may be ejected from the leased premises without court action as long as there is a stipulation to this effect. Due process was not violated since as owner, the lessor merely allowed the lessee to use it for a certain period, especially if there is a stipulation giving the lessor to repossess upon the expiration of the lease.
