Você está na página 1de 7

CASE LAW IN CIVIL LAW

(Lease)
Lease. A CIVIL LAW LESSEE CAN SUBLEASE THE LEASED PROPERTY, UNLESS THERE IS AN
EXPRESS PROHIBITION AGAINST SUBLETTING IN THE CONTRACT ITSELF..- In a lease
contract under the Civil Code, the rule is that the lessee can sublease the leased property, unless
there is an express prohibition against subletting in the contract itself. To bar the lessee from
subletting, the contract of lease must expressly stipulate the prohibition on subletting.
Lease. A SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IS NECESSARY TO LEASE ANY REAL PROPERTY
TO ANOTHER PERSON FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR..- Article 1878 of the Civil Code expresses
that a special power of attorney is necessary to lease any real property to another person for more
than one year. The lease of real property for more than one year is considered not merely an act of
administration but an act of strict dominion or of ownership. A special power of attorney is thus
necessary for its execution through an agent.
Lease. Regardless of the extent of dispossession, whether total or partial, the provision on extension
of term applies since the lessee's failure to use a portion of the leased premises is equivalent to a
dispossession from the entire area in question, the agreement of the parties being precisely the
lease of the whole 60,115 sq. m. of petitioner's lot at the Manila International Airport. By the terms of
the contract then, petitioner's obligation to deliver to respondent UBL the entire leased premises and
maintain the latter in peaceful, uninterrupted possession was indivisible. When respondent UBL
could not occupy and use portions of the leased premises, it was in effect deprived of possession
thereof for there was incomplete performance by the petitioner of its principal prestation, thereby
calling for the application of the contractual provision on extension of term.
Lease. THE ASSIGNMENT OF A LEASE BY THE LESSEE NEEDS THE CONSENT OF THE
LESSOR.-The assignment of a lease by the lessee involves a transfer of rights and obligations
pertaining to the contract; hence, the consent of the lessor is necessary. 14 Article 1649 of the Civil
Code is explicit: The lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there
is a stipulation to the contrary." The objective of the law in prohibiting the assignment of the lease
without the lessor's consent is to protect the owner or lessor of the leased property. 15 In the case of
cession or assignment of lease rights on real property, there is a novation by the substitution of the
person of one of the parties the lessee. 16 The personality of the lessee, who dissociates from
the lease, disappears; only two persons remain in the juridical relationthe lessor and the assignee
who is converted into the new lessee. 17 In the instant case, RCAM never assented to the
assignment of the lease. This is apparent from the December 11, 1997 letter 18 of its counsel, Atty.
Socrates R. Rivera, stating that Fernando Lim was no longer its tenant for his failure to pay the
rentals as of August 1988. As a rule, this letter may not necessarily result in the cessation of Mr.
Fernando's right to possess the leased premises. Under the law, mere nonpayment of rentals without
the lessor's demand to pay and vacate is not sufficient to oust the lessee from the leased premises.
19 The letter, however, demonstrates the lessor's lack of consent to the assignment.
Lease; Fair Rental Value: Fair rental value is the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the leased property.- We have defined fair rental value as the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. 31 There is no hard and fast rule in
determining the reasonableness of the rental charged. In Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. CA [245
SCRA 715 (1995)], we considered: (a) the prevailing rates in the vicinity; (b) location of the property;
(c) use of the property; (d) inflation rate; and (e) the testimony of one of the private respondents. In
Umali vs. The City of Naga [96 Phil. 379 (1954)], we added a catch-all phrase that "other minor
factors" should be taken into consideration.

Lease; Implied New Lease. A NOTICE TO VACATE ABORTS THE IMPLIED NEW LEASE; THE
SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE BY THE LESSOR OF RENTAL PAYMENTS DOES NOT
LEGITIMIZE THE UNLAWFUL CHARACTER OF THEIR POSSESSION.-When notice to vacate
dated January 6, 1990 was sent by TWC to petitioners, followed by another dated July 16, 1990, the
tacita reconduccion was aborted. For a notice to vacate constitutes an express act on the part of the
lessor that it no longer consents to the continued occupation by the lessees of its property.
Contrary to petitioners' contention, the subsequent acceptance by the lessor of rental payments does
not, absent any circumstance that may dictate a contrary conclusion, legitimize the unlawful
character of their possession.
Lease; Implied New Lease. IF AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT THE LESSEE IS ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE ENJOYING THE THING LEASED, AN IMPLIED NEW LEASE IS CREATED.-The lease
contracts executed by TWC and petitioners in 1986/1987 were for a period of one year. Following
Article 1669 of the Civil Code, the lease contracts having been executed for a determinate time, they
ceased on the day fixed, that is, a year after their execution without need of further demand. While
no subsequent lease contracts extending the duration of the original lease were forged, it appears
that TWC allowed petitioners to continue occupying the lot as in fact it continued to demand, collect
and accept monthly rentals. An implied new lease (tacita reconduccion) was thus created pursuant to
Article 1670 of the New Civil Code. xxx Since the period for the tacita reconduccion was not fixed
and the rentals were paid on a monthly basis, the contract was from month-to-month. 17 A month-tomonth lease under Article 1687 18 is a lease with a definite period, hence, it is terminable at the end
of each month upon demand to vacate by the lessor.
Lease; Period Not Fixed: Conformably, we hold that as the rental in the case at bar was paid monthly
and the term was not expressly agreed upon, the lease was understood under Article 1687 of the
Civil Code to be terminable from month to month. (Jespajo Realty Corporation vs. G.R. No. 113626.
September 27, 2002)
Lease; Period Not Fixed: When there is a fixed period for the lease, whether the period be definite or
indefinite or when the period of the lease is expressly left to the will of the lessee, Art. 1687 will not
apply.-Crucial in the resolution of this case is the construction of the lease agreement, particularly
the portion on the period of lease, which reads: PERIOD OF LEASE The lease period shall be
effective as of February 1, 1985 and shall continue for an indefinite period provided the lessee is upto-date in the payment of his monthly rentals. Petitioner insists that the subject contract of lease
did not provide for a definite period hence it falls under the ambit of Art. 1687 of the NCC, making the
agreement effective on a month-to-month basis since rental payments are made monthly. The Court
of Appeals opined otherwise. It reasoned that the application of Art. 1687 in this case is misplaced
because 'when there is a fixed period for the lease, whether the period be definite or indefinite or
when the period of the lease is expressly left to the will of the lessee, Art. 1687 will not apply'13 ,
citing Eleizagui vs. Manila Lawn Tennis Club, 2 Phil 309. We agree with the ruling of the Court of
Appeals. Art. 1687 finds no application in the case at bar.
Lease; Warranty Against Hidden Defects.Where the lessee was given every opportunity to visit and
inspect the premises prior to the execution of the contract of lease and furnished a copy of the tax
declaration of the property for purposes of registration of the lease contract, where the property was
described therein as a former fishpond, an action for breach of warranty against hidden defects will
not prosper.
Contract of Lease; Option to buy; Expiration.; --- Even if the parties originally had a contract of lease
with option to buy, when the lease contract expired, the tacit renewal of the contract was limited only
to those terms of the contract which were germane to the petitioner's right of continued lease over
the property and did not extend to alien matters like the option to buy the leased premises. Thus, the

implied new lease did not ipso facto carry with it the revival of the option to buy the leased premises
because said option was alien to the lease. Hence, the right to exercise the option to purchase
expired with the termination of the original contract of lease.
Lease; Contract Stipulation; In a contract of lease, the stipulation entered into between the lessor
and the lessee to limit their lease relationship to themselves alone has the force of law between
them. They cannot go beyond what appears on the lease contract they have entered into. Thus,
when the lease contract provides that the lessee shall not directly or indirectly sublease, assign,
transfer, convey, mortgage or in any manner encumber its right of lease over the leased premises or
any portion thereof whatsoever , the assignment made by the lessee to a third person of his right of
first option to buy the leased property in case of its sale has no legal warrant. The lessee being
barred by the contract from assigning her right to lease the subject property to any other party is
similarly barred from assigning her first option to buy the leased property to a third person
Lease; lease without a fixed period; extension of period; --The extension of a contract of lease
without a fixed period may only be sought before the term of the contract expires and not after. Thus,
in a case where payment of rentals is made monthly, the life of the lease contract expires at the end
of every month and tacitly renewed every time the lessor accepts the monthly payment. At end of
Oct. 1990, the lessor Martinez Leyba, Inc. opted not to renew the lease nor accept payment. The
lease was terminated ipso facto. Hence, the contract having expired, the lessee could not belatedly
file a suit in equity to extend its term. Lease; lease without a fixed period, fixing a long period; --The
power of the court to "fix a longer term for the lease" is potestative or discretionary, to be exercised or
not in accordance with the particular circumstances of the case. Thus, where the court finds the
lessee not having the common decency to inform their lessor that they were subleasing the latter's
property, now have the nerve to come to the courts and invoke equity. The court may refuse to grant
the extension of term under the doctrine of "he who seeks equity must do equity".
Lease; Constructive Delivery of Leased Premises by execution of Formal Surrender The padlocking
of the main door of the ground floor units and the continued use thereof as defendants passageway
to and from the second floor unit did not virtually deny the plaintiff of its right to possess the unit.
There was intention to relinquish in favor of plaintiff its possession over the premises. The filing of the
Formal Surrender at the MeTC-Manila, constituted its constructive delivery of the said premises.
Thereafter, it actually emptied and vacated the premises. Therefore, the plaintiff could have taken
legal and actual possession of premises. It could have easily removed the padlock and occupied the
premises in view of its unconditional surrender of the premises. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. v.
Chinese Young Mens Christian Assn. of the Phils. Islands, et al., G.R. No. 171858, January 22,
2007 Lease; Liability of Sublessee for the rentals. The liability of the sublessee to the lessor for the
rentals is subsidiary. Although Article 1652 of the Civil Code permits the lessor to proceed against
the sublessee for rent due from the lessee, this is only on a subsidiary liability basis. There must be
a judgment canceling the lessees principal lease contract or ousting the lessee from the premises
before the sub-lessee becomes subsidiary liable. The sub-lessee is not liable to the lessor under
Article 1652 upon mere demand by the lessor on the sub-lessee. The sub-lessee is primarily liable to
his sub-lessor and only a court can extinguish or modify this primary liability if the sub-lessor
contests the pre-termination of the principal lease by the lessor. (Blas vs. CA, 180 SCRA 60). Lease;
Extrajudicial Ejectment Valid Contractual stipulations empowering the lessor to repossess the leased
property extrajudicially from a lessee whose lease has expired have been held to be valid. Being the
law between the parties, they must be respected. Since respondents and intervenors agreed to
abide by the regulations of the military facility, judicial action is no longer necessary to evict
respondents and intervenors from the military quarters. Respondents and intervenors authorized
petitioner to extrajudicially take over the possession of the leased military housing quarters after their
retirement. This is also in line with the policy of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the

Philippine Navy to provide military quarters for the exclusive use of military personnel who are in the
active service.
Lease; assignment of lease; need for consent. The assignment of lease made by the lessee without
the consent of the lessor is rescissible. Thus, where the consent of the lessor was required before
any assignment of the lease over the billboard could be effective against it, there being no stipulation
allowing the lessee to do otherwise, justifies the rescission of a Deed of Assignment.(Simedarby
Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Goodyear Philippines, Inc., et al./Goodyear Philippines, Inc. vs. Sime Darby
Pilipinas, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 182148/G.R. No. 183210. June 8, 2011) Assignment of lease;
novation. In an assignment of a lease, there is a novation by the substitution of the person of one of
the parties the lessee. The personality of the lessee, who dissociates from the lease, disappears.
Thereafter, a new juridical relation arises between the two persons who remain the lessor and the
assignee who is converted into the new lessee. The objective of the law in prohibiting the
assignment of the lease without the lessors consent is to protect the owner or lessor of the leased
property. Assignment of lease ;consent of lessor; no particular form required. The consent of the
lessor to an assignment of lease may indeed be given expressly or impliedly. It need not be given
simultaneously with that of the lessee and of the assignee. Neither is it required to be in any specific
or particular form. It must, however, be clearly given. Thus, it cannot be said that the lessor gave its
implied consent to the assignment of lease where the former made formal its refusal to give consent
to the transfer/ assignment to the assignee of its right in the lease over the billboard.
Lease; obligations of the lessor; liability for damages Failure of the lessor to fulfill any of the
obligations enumerated in Article 1654 of the Civil Code will render the lessor liable for damages. In
contracts, the obligor (lessor) who acted in good faith is liable for damages that are the material and
probable consequence of the breach of the obligation and which the parties have foreseen or could
have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was contracted. In case of fraud, bad faith,
malice or wanton attitude, he shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably
attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. Thus, where the tenants (lessee), instead of
depositing their rentals to assignee-lessor, remitted their rentals to Tenants Association on the
ground that the latter has pending case for annulment of the purchase and assignment as they have
the priority in law to purchase the property, thereby preventing the assignee-lessor to finance the
implementation of the necessary repairs ordered by the local government as the property has
become a dangerous or ruinous, and such failure necessitated the conduct of repairs and tearing
down of structures with the assistance of members of PNP, with the lessee suffering losses of some
of his personal properties, the assignee-lessor is NOT liable for damages. Breach of contract is the
failure without legal reason to comply with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the failure,
without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of the contract. By their
own actions, the tenants of the subject building prevented assignee-lessor from performing its duty to
maintain them in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Moreover, lessee failed to
prove that assignee-lessor had anything to do with the demolition/repairs and the loss of his personal
property.
Same; same; same; warranty; peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease - The duty to maintain
the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the duration of the contract is
merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his legal, and not physical possession
Thus, where the temporary disturbance on the leased premises was done by the City Engineers on
orders of the City Mayor, who is authorized by law to order the repair, maintenance or demolition of
the building found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous for life, health, safety and/or well-being of
the general public and its occupants, without the participation of the lessor, cannot be deemed as
violation of lessors warranty under Article 1654. The lessor, therefore, is NOT liable for damages.

Same; same; same; trespass in fact distinguished from trespass in law If the act of trespass is not
accompanied or preceded by anything which reveals a juridic intention on the part of the trespasser,
in such wise that the lessee can only distinguish the material fact, stripped of all legal form or
reasons, we understand it to be trespass in fact only (de mero hecho) as in Article 1664 of the Civil
Code. Further, the obligation under Article 1654(3) arises only when acts, termed as legal trespass
(perturbacion de derecho), disturb, dispute, object to, or place difficulties in the way of the lessees
peaceful enjoyment of the premises that in some manner cast doubt upon the right of the lessor by
virtue of which the lessor himself executed the lease. Thus, where the trespass was by virtue of the
lawful order of the City Mayor pursuant to compliance with City Building Code, such is classified as
trespass in fact and the lessor is NOT liable for any damages arising therefrom.
Same; same; same; constructive eviction; requisites - There may be a constructive eviction if the
landlord does a wrongful act or is guilty of any default or neglect whereby the leased premises are
rendered unsafe, unfit, or unsuitable for occupancy, in whole, or in substantial part, for the purposes
for which they were leased. However, two factors must exist before there can be a constructive
eviction: (1) an act or omission by the landlord, or someone acting under his authority, which
permanently interferes with the tenants beneficial enjoyment or use of the leased premises; and (2)
an abandonment of possession by the lessee within a reasonable time. Thus, where the City
Building Official was tasked merely to repair/rehabilitate the building and not to demolish the same
causing the placement eviction of the tenants and neither did lessee abandon the leased premises,
there is NO constructive eviction. The assignee-lessors failure to make repairs or alterations to the
leased premises as required by public authorities, particularly those that are substantial and
structural in nature, to constitute constructive eviction, should be grounded on the fact that it was the
lessor who is obliged to make the repairs on the leased property. When the Tenants Association,
whose members are the lessees, deprived the assignee-lessor from generating funds for repair of
the building, the lessees, thru the Association, effectively controlled the premises, which fact shifted
the burden to make necessary repairs from the lessor to the tenants.
Contract of lease; implied renewal of contract; acceptance of rents after expiration of the contract;
due process. (1) The acceptance by the lessor of the rentals after the original lease has expired is
not implied consent to a new contract. Thus, where a lessor collected or accepted rents from the
lessee who remained in possession of the formers property even after the lease has expired
pending the final determination of unlawful detainer case filed by the former against the latter, does
not constitute acquiescence by the lessor to give rise to an implied new contract of lease. The rents
due after the termination of the original contract result from the use of the property while the case is
pending and not by virtue of a new contract of lease , regardless of the outcome of their case, the
lessee had to pay rentals thereto to avoid undue enrichment.(2) Court is not required to expressly
dispose of every argument raised by the litigants. Hence, where the decision of the case of the Court
of Appeals does not expressly dispose of the supplement to the motion for reconsideration ,the party
raising such points of arguments is not denied due process of law. It is understood that the court
rendering the decision has considered the supplement so raised, but found to be undeserving of
further comment. Courts must distinguish between the substantial and the irrelevant or trivial as a
practical measure for the proper harnessing of their time.
Lease; Sublease; Contract stipulations When in a contract of lease, it was clearly stipulated that
the lessee can use the premises as a dwelling or as a lodging house, the subleasing of the
premises to the lodgers does not constitute a violation of the terms of contract. This also applies
even the lessee is no longer in possession and control of the leased premises. Thus, the lessors act
of ejecting the lodgers three (3) months prior to the expiration of contract without justifiable reason
constitutes a breach of contract, and is therefore liable for damages (Sunbanun vs. Go, G.R. No.
163280, February 2, 2010).

Contracts: Lease: unlawful detainer; resolution of question of ownership -A tenant may show that the
landlord's title has been conveyed to another. The tenant must essentially assert that title to the
leased premises already belongs to a third person who need not be a party to the ejectment case.
Hence, in cases where a party raises question of ownership and the question of possession cannot
be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership. The court may proceed and resolve the issue of
ownership but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession but nevertheless the
disposition is not final. Thus, a pending case to settle ownership does not preclude the court to rule
on the issue of ownership in a case of unlawful detainer.
Lease: unlawful detainer; resolution of question of ownership -A tenant may show that the landlord's
title has been conveyed to another. The tenant must essentially assert that title to the leased
premises already belongs to a third person who need not be a party to the ejectment case. Hence, in
cases where a party raises question of ownership and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership. The court may proceed and resolve the issue of
ownership but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession but nevertheless the
disposition is not final. Thus, a pending case to settle ownership does not preclude the court to rule
on the issue of ownership in a case of unlawful detainer. Lease; Sublease;Sublessees right; - A
judgment of eviction against a lessee affects his sub-lessee, even if the latter are not sued in the
ejectment case. This is so because a sub-lessee can invoke no right superior to that of his sublessor,
and the moment the latter is duly ousted from the premises, the former has no leg to stand on. Thus,
where the lessee has been ejected by final and executory judgment, and was ordered to immediately
vacate the property and surrender the same to the plaintiff therein, it was held that said judgment is
equally enforceable and binding against his sublessees even if the latter had not been made parties
thereto. For sublessees derive their alleged right to the occupancy of the premises in question from
one who has lost his right to the same. Consequently, they must perforce be likewise ousted from the
premises---for the river cannot rise higher than its source. The sublessees right, if any, is to
demand reparation for damages from his sublessor, should the latter be at fault. The sublessees can
only assert such right of possession as could have been granted them by their sublessor, their right
of possession depending entirely upon that of the latter.
Lease; ejectment; expiration lease contract- Ejectment shall be allowed on the ground of expiration
of the period of a written lease contract .(B.P Blg.25 or Rent Control Law ,Section 5 par.f).Thus,
regardless of the lessors reason for wanting to repossess the leased premises, as long as the lease
has expired, there is a legal ground for ejectment.
Lease; Action;The right to eject devolves upon the buyer of leasesd property -In no case can the
lessor or his successor -in - interest be entitled to eject the lessee on the ground that the leased
premises has been sold. Thus, the owners successor- in - interest must respect an existing contract
of lease . Any attempt to eject the lessee while the lease period is still running tantamounts to breach
of contract . But where the lease has expired , there is no contract to breach .
Lease; jurisdiction ;The MTC has jurisction over action for ejectment- The MTC has jurisdiction over
action for ejectment . Thus, were the complaint filed with the MTC clearly shoes that it is a simple
ejectment case and where no issue nor allegation is made involving any other question but the right
of the new buyer to oust tenant from the premises based on the expiration of the contract and on the
repeated demands made . Ergo,it falls under the jurisdiction of MTC
Lease; Sublease; Contract stipulations When in a contract of lease, it was clearly stipulated that
the lessee can use the premises as a dwelling or as a lodging house, the subleasing of the
premises to the lodgers does not constitute a violation of the terms of contract. This also applies
even the lessee is no longer in possession and control of the leased premises. Thus, the lessors act
of ejecting the lodgers three (3) months prior to the expiration of contract without justifiable reason
constitutes a breach of contract, and is therefore liable for damages (Sunbanun vs. Go, G.R. No.
163280, February 2, 2010).

Lease; Necessary repairs. --- Lessor is under no obligation to make the necessary repairs in order to
keep the leased property (land) suitable for the purpose for which it has been intended. Thus, where
it was clearly the intention of the parties, upon entering the contract of lease, for lessee to simply
obtain a site, a flat-surface,for the establishment of a sales office and was understood and agreed
upon by the lessor. Hence, refusal of the lessor to accede to lessees request for pretermination of
the lease for failure to make necessary repairs being justified, the lessor is entitled to demand
compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract of lease.
Contract of Lease; Unlawful Detainer; Letter of Demand to Vacate;---Under Article 1673 of the Civil
Code, the lessor may judicially eject the lessee for, among other causes: (1) lack of payment of the
price stipulated; or (2) violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract. However, the
lessor must make a demand upon the lessee to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to
vacate the premises. It is the owners demand for the tenant to vacate the premises and the tenants
refusal to do so which makes unlawful the withholding of possession. Such refusal violates the
owners right of possession giving rise to an action for unlawful detainer. Thus, the lessors letter,
which merely informed the lessee that the former had terminated the lease based on the cited
violations of the terms of the lease, and on the basis of this termination, required lessee to vacate the
premises, is NOT a letter which demands compliance with the terms of the lease. From this
perspective, the lessor did not fully comply with the requirements of Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules
of Court. Technically, no extrajudicial rescission effectively took place as a result of the cited
violations until the demand to pay or comply was duly served and was rejected or disregarded by the
lessee. This aspect of the demand letter is missing in the lessors and whose rejection would have
triggered the demand to vacate. Hence, it gave the lessor no effective cause of action to judicially
demand the lessees ejectment or to file an Unlawful Detainer Case, which the appellate court failed
to appreciate
Lease; Contract of Lease no specified period; no written contract; however paying monthly rentals;--the lessor may judicially eject the lessee when the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the
duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired. Article 1687 of the same Code
provides that if the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if
the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. Thus lease agreements with no
specified period, but in which rentals are paid monthly, are considered to be on a month-to-month
basis
Lease; Lessee/sublessee cannot controvert the title of his lessor. Estoppel applies even though the
lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was created, and may be asserted not
only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title. Thus, in contract of sublease
which expressly mentions a pending litigation between the original lessor and the lessee concerning
the leased property, the sublessee, who had an undisturbed possession for the entire term under the
sublease contract is precluded from denying the title of his landlord, or assert a better title not only in
themselves, but also to a third person while they remain in possession of the lease premises and
until they surrender the possession to the landlord. The stipulation in the contract of sublease serves
as a constructive notice as to condition of the subject property.
Lease; verbal contract of lease on a month-to-month basis; power of the court to fix a longer term for
a lease - A verbal contract of lease between owner and lessee on a month-to-month basis is a lease
with definite period and such expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period, upon proper
demand and notice by the lessor to vacate. Thus, the potestative authority of the courts to fix a
longer term for a lease under Article 1687 applies only to cases where there is no period fixed by the
parties. Hence, it is error for the court to extend a lease contract when such has already expired.