GR L 9189; (March, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9189; March 30, 1957
ALEJANDRO LIM AND JOSEFA YATCO LIM, petitioners, vs. CONSUELO LEGARDA VDA. DE PRIETO AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Alejandro Lim and Josefa Yatco Lim were lessees of a parcel of land owned by respondent Consuelo Legarda Vda. de Prieto in San Miguel, Manila. They had occupied the land since 1937, built a residence valued at about P10,000, and paid a monthly rent of P19.62 without a written contract. On June 1, 1950, the respondent, through her lawyer, notified the petitioners that she needed the land for her own exclusive use, terminated the lease effective June 30, 1950, and gave them until the end of July to vacate. The petitioners failed to vacate, leading to an ejectment complaint filed in the Municipal Court of Manila. The Municipal Court and the Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the respondent. The Court of Appeals also ruled for the respondent but extended the lease for one year from the finality of its decision, ordering the petitioners to vacate and remove their house at the end of that period, provided they continued paying monthly rent. The Court of Appeals based this extension on Article 1687 of the Civil Code, finding no stipulated period and that the lease was from month to month due to monthly rental payments.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 1687 of the Civil Code to extend the lease for one year, despite the existence of a verbal agreement that the petitioners would vacate when the respondent needed the property.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the verbal agreement between the parties fixed the period of the lease, as the petitioners knew it would expire when the respondent needed the property. This condition was met when the respondent notified the petitioners on June 1, 1950, of her need for the land. Therefore, Article 1687 of the Civil Code, which allows courts to fix a longer term for leases with no stipulated period, should not have been applied. However, the Supreme Court could not modify the Court of Appeals’ decision because the respondent did not appeal from it. Consequently, the decision ordering the petitioners to vacate at the end of one year from its finality was affirmed.