Hernania Lani Lopez v. Gloria Umale-Cosme [G.R. No. 171891; February 24, 2009]

By Miguel Mañago

Facts:

Respondent Gloria Umale-Cosme is the owner of an apartment building at 15 Sibuyan Street, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, while the petitioner is a lessee of one of the units therein. She was paying a monthly rent of P1,340.00 as of 1999.

On April 19, 1999, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioner before Branch 43 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City on the grounds of expiration of contract of lease and nonpayment of rentals from December 1998. On March 19, 2003, the MeTC, Branch 43, rendered judgment in favor of respondent

On appeal, the RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC and ruled that the contract of lease between respondent and petitioner lacked a definite period. According to the RTC, the lessee may not be ejected on the ground of termination of the period until the judicial authorities have fixed such period.

Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in a Resolution dated February 2, 2004.

Aggrieved, respondent repaired to the CA, which found merit in her appeal

The CA denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in a resolution dated March 13, 2006. As a consequence, petitioner filed the instant petition for review, where she argues that the CA gravely erred when it ruled that she may be ejected on the ground of termination of lease contract.


Issue:
W/N the CA gravely erred when it ruled that she may be ejected on the ground of termination of lease contract.


Ruling:

The petition is utterly bereft of merit.

It is well settled that where a contract of lease is verbal and on a monthly basis, the lease is one with a definite period which expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period. In the recent case of Leo Wee v. De Castro where the lease contract between the parties did not stipulate a fixed period.

In the case at bar, it has been sufficiently established that no written contract existed between the parties and that rent was being paid by petitioner to respondent on a month-to-month basis.As the CA noted, petitioner admitted the lack of such written contract in her complaint. Moreover, in the instant petition for review, petitioner herself alleged that she has been occupying the leased premises and paying the monthly rentals without fail since 1975. Hence, petitioners argument that the contract of lease between her and respondent lacked a definite period and that corollarily, she may not be ejected on the ground of termination of period does not hold water. Petitioner was merely grasping at straws when she imputed grave error upon the CAs decision to eject her from the leased premises.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.