- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 1687
- Topic
- Lease of Rural and Urban Lands
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK IV Obligations and Contracts
- Title
- TITLE VIII LEASE
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 2 Lease of Rural and Urban Lands
- Formerly
- Art. 1581a of the old Civil Code
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
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. (1581a)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
When a lease sets no fixed period, its duration follows how the rent is paid: yearly rent means a year-to-year lease, monthly rent month-to-month, weekly rent week-to-week, and daily rent day-to-day. Even so, courts may grant a longer term once the tenant has occupied the premises for over a year (monthly rent), over six months (weekly), or over a month (daily).
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Alejandro Sy Jueco v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held: The implied lease renewal of Article 1687 does not apply where there are sufficient grounds for dispossession under Article 1673 (Article 1675); a tenant waives Article 1687 by not pleading it as a defense.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Viegely Samelo v. Manotok Services
- Vicente J. Santi v. Hon. Court of Appeals
- Alejandro Sy Jueco v. The Honorable Court of Appeals
- San Miguel Foods v. Ernesto Raoul V. Magtuto
- Jesus Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex
- Hernania "Lani" Lopez v. Gloria Umale-Cosme
- Leo Wee v. George de Castro (On His Behalf
- Tristan Lopez As Attorney-In-Fact of Leticia v. Leticia R. Fajardo
Other Supreme Court decisions also apply this article.