This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the lease period was not agreed upon by the parties. Rental was paid monthly, and respondent has been occupying the premises since 1958. As earlier stated, a written notice was served upon respondent on January 17, 2001 terminating the lease effective August 31, 2001. As respondent was notified of the expiration of the lease, effectively his right to stay in the premises had come to an end on August 31, 2001.[24] | |||||
|
2001-04-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the finding of all the three (3) lower courts that the lease contract between petitioner and respondent Chua was on a monthly basis. We recall that one of the subject matters of the stipulation during the preliminary conference was that "the manner of payment of rental is on a monthly basis." It is settled that if the rent is paid monthly, the lease is on a month-to-month basis[13] and may be terminated at the end of each month.[14] Article 1687 of the Civil Code is in point. Among other things, it provides that "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." | |||||