SPOUSES RICARDO AND LOURDES CORTEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. JUDGE SERAFIN E. CAMILON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, PASIG BRANCH VIII AND RECAREDO CORONEL, R…

This is an appeal on a question of law under Republic Act No.
5440 from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch
VIII, ejecting the Cortez spouses from the apartment known as 4541-D Quintos
Street, Makati, Metro Manila.  The Court
of First Instance affirmed the judgment of the Makati municipal court.

The ground for ejectment is the lessor’s need of the apartment
for the use of his daughter, Grace Coronel-Valdez, who is residing with her
in-laws also on Quintos Street.  We gave due
course to the petition because of the tenants’ contention that that ground for
ejectment applies only to cases where the lease has expired and it cannot apply
to the case of the Cortez spouses where the month-to-month lease did not expire
and where ejectment based on that ground has been suspended.

The plausibility of that contention is more apparent than
real.  The Civil Code provides:

“ART. 1673.  The lessor
may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following causes:

(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the
duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired;

(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;

(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the
contract;

(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use or service
not stipulated which causes the de­terioration thereof; or if he does not
observe the re­quirement in No. 2 of article 1657, as regards the use
thereof.”

x x x                                                                                                     x
x x                                                                        x x x

“ART. 1687.  If the
period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to
year, if the rent agreed upon is 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 be paid
daily.  However, even though a monthly
rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the courts may fix a
longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over
one year.  If the rent is weekly, the
courts may likewise determine a longer
period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months.  In case of daily rent, the courts may also
fix a longer period after the
lessee has stayed in the place for over one month.”

Presidential Decree No. 20 (which amended Republic Act 6359 passed
in 1971), as an act of social justice, froze the rentals of the lower income
group of persons at their 1972 levels. 
It provides:

“SEC. 4.  Except when
the lease is for a definite period, the provisions of paragraph (1) of Article
1673 of the Civil Code of the Philippines insofar as they refer to dwelling
unit or land on which another’s dwel­ling is located shall be suspended until
otherwise pro­vided; but other provisions of the Civil Code and the Rules of
Court of the Philippines on lease contracts, insofar as they are not in
conflict with the provisions of this Act, shall apply”.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 in 1979 specified the grounds for
ejectment for tenants of residential units the total monthly rental of which
does not exceed three hundred pesos (P300).  It provides:

“SEC. 5.  Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. – Ejectment shall be allowed on the
following grounds:

x x x                                                                                      x
x x                                                                                  x x x

“c. Need of
owner/lessor to repossess his property for his own use or for the use of any imme­diate member of
his family as a residential unit, such owner or immediate member not being the
owner of any other available residential unit: 
Provided, however,
That the period of lease has expired; Provided, further, That the lessor
has given the lessee notice three months in advance of the lessor’s intention
to repossess the property; and Provided, finally, That the owner/lessor
or immediate member stays in the residential unit for at least one year, except for justifiable cause.”

“SEC. 6.  Application of the Civil Code and
Rules of Court of the Philippines. – Except when the lease is for a
definite period, the provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the Civil Code of the Philippines insofar
as they refer to residential units covered by this Act shall be suspended during the effectivity of this
Act, but other provisions of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court on lease
contracts, insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Act,
shall apply.”

The Cortez spouses contend that, under the foregoing legal
provisions, the landlord’s need of the apartment for the use of an immediate
member of his family is a ground
for ejectment only when the lease contract is for a fixed period and it has ex­pired.  It does not apply to their month-to-month
lease.  (p. 12, Brief).

That contention is fallacious. 
Recaredo Coronel, the landlord, terminated the month-to-month lease of
the Cortez spouses in his demand to vacate dated June 4, 1979 (Exh. A).  The ejectment suit was filed in September,
1979.

The ground was not the expiration of the month-to-month
lease.  That cannot be a ground under
Presidential Decree No. 20 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.  The ground
was the landlord’s need of the apartment for his daughter’s use.  It is a legitimate ground.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s judgment is
affirmed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.