A lease may be oral or in writing. Notwithstanding the form, a lessee enjoys the right to be secured in his/her possession such that the lessor cannot take the law in his hands to get possession.
Article 536 of the new Civil Code gives protection to the tenant, as it states: “in no case may a possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.” The owner or lessor who violates this law is liable for grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Rent Control Law – Republic Act No. 9653 also protects the lessees of residential units against unreasonable yearly rental increase [as the law only allows 2% for rent of P4,999 and below; 7% to P5,000 but less than P9,000 and 11% for P9,000 to P10,000.00. Charging of excessive deposit and advance rent [as only 2 months deposit and 1 month advance rent is allowed] and eviction without legal grounds. Lessors who will violate this law are subject to criminal liability of fine of P25,000 up to P50,000 and imprisonment of one to six months.
The lessor needs to file an ejectment case in court to restore him in or to get the possession. Now, may a lessor extrajudicially eject a lessee; meaning can he eject the lessee without going to court?
The case in point is Viray v. IAC, 198 SCRA 786 [GR 81015, 04 July 1991]. In 1981, Victor rented the apartment of De Asis. In the lease contract the lessor shall have the right to enter and take possession upon five-day written notice if the lessee fails to comply with any of the terms of the lease, without the need to file a court suit.
\In 1983, the lessee left for Canada leaving the unit to his son. In 1985, the lessor filed an ejectment suit, but since the lessee returned, they both dismissed the case. The lessee left again for Canada and his brother used the place, installed a padlock and visited the place occasionally. The lessor learned about it, cut the utilities and posted a notice of termination of lease for abandonment and non-payment of rentals.
A month later, the notice was no longer there. He again posted another notice that he would repossess the place after five days to secure it from fire, repair and inventory. He asked the local barangay to open and repossess the apartment and leased it to Viray.
Victor filed an action for forcible entry at the MeTC against the lessor and Viray. A judgment was issued ordering them to restore Victor in possession. It was ruled that Victor could not be deemed to have abandoned the apartment, and even if he had, he cannot repossess it without judicial action, the stipulation authorizing the lessor to do so is void as it is “against public policy. They appealed to the RTC and CA without success. After three losses, lessor raised to the Supreme Court his right to repossess the unit without prior judicial authority.
The Supreme Court reversed the CA, RTC and MTC decisions as it ruled that the stipulation referred to does by its terms empower the lessor to repossess the apartment extrajudicially.
It is noteworthy that in an earlier case decided in 1975, Consing v. Jamandre, it sustained the validity of a substantially identical condition in a written lease allowing the lessor to repossess the leased property without judicial authority. Such a contractual provision “is not illegal, there being nothing in the law proscribing such kind of agreement. A considerable authority in American law upholds the validity of such stipulation. Though a lessor cannot forcibly eject a tenant who wrongfully holds without incurring civil liability, nevertheless, where a lease provides that if the tenant holds over after the expiration of his term, the landlord may enter and take possession of the premises, using all necessary force to obtain the actual possession thereof, and that such entry should not be regarded as a trespass, xxx, the landlord may forcibly expel the tenant upon the termination of the tenancy, using no more force than is necessary, and will not be liable to the tenant therefor, such a condition in a lease being valid.”
A similar case happened on 06th July 2011 in GR 184253 in Republic v. Peralta, et. al. It was held that contractual stipulations empowering the lessor to repossess the leased property extrajudicially from a lessee whose lease has expired has been held to be valid. Being the law between the parties, they must be respected.
