9 December 2020

Mr. Brando Perez

1811 Taft Avenue,
Pasay City
1300 Metro Manila
 

Dear Mr. Perez:

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not you can
lock your lessee inside your property who refuses to leave despite the lapse of his
contract and arrears in rent; and the actions and case you can file against him.

The Facts

Per our discussion and the documents you have shown me, the following are the
pertinent facts:

On January 15, 2019, you leased your condominium to your classmate, Glen
Noble. After a week on said date, you left for Europe to take care of your mother.

Upon returning a year later, Glen refuses to leave your property despite the lapse
of the one year contract and his arrears in rent.

The Applicable Laws

The applicable laws are Article 1159 of the Civil Code; Paragraph (1), Article 286
of the Revised Penal Code; Paragraph (1), (6), Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code;
Paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), Section 9 of the Republic Act 9653: Rent Control Law;
Section 2, Rule 70 of Rules of Court; Paragraph (bb), Section 4 of the Republic Act
11469: Bayanihan to Heal As One Act in conjunction with Paragraph (3.1), (3.2),
Section 2 of DTI MC No. 20-31.
 Article 1159 of the Civil Code

“Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.”

In accordance with the aforementioned article, obligations arising from contracts

have the force of law. This means that neither party may unilaterally and upon his own
volition, escape his obligations under the contract. 

Paragraph (1), Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of
law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something
not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong.”

       The act of locking in your tenant inside the unit he’s leasing from you is illegal
and felonious. As stated above, penalty shall be imposed upon those who, without
authority of law, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law. A demand must first be done against the lessee and his subsequent
refusal to agree is required for the tenant to constitute as an unlawful detainer.
Therefore, without such demand, the action of the lessee is not prohibited by law.

       Paragraph (1), (6), Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who

shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his
liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three

days…
 When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention …, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed.” 

       As provided above, if you decided to continue your plan on locking your tenant
inside the condominium, that would constitute as illegal detention if inaction to rectify
such action lasted for more than three days. If the lessee dies as a consequence of
such action, you would be criminally liable and maximum penalty will be imposed upon
you.

Section 2, Rule 70 of Rules of Court provides:

“Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. — Unless otherwise

stipulated, such action by the lesser shall be commenced only after
demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is
made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon
the person found on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the
lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land
or five (5) days in the case of buildings.” 

In accordance with the foregoing provision, you must make a demand upon the
lessee to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate the premises.

In all cases, notice to vacate is crucial. A demand is a prerequisite to an action

for unlawful detainer where the action is based on non-payment of rentals and/or
violation of any of the conditions of the lease.  

However, if the tenant is still occupying the property 15 days after the lease
contract has expired, and you nor the tenant has not issued an advance notice for
evacuation of the unit, it implies that the contract has been renewed as lease contracts
may be oral or written.

 
      Section 9, RA 9653: Rent Control Law provides:

“Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. - Ejectment shall be allowed on the

following grounds:

Arrears in payment of rent for a total of three (3) months: Provided, That in
the case of refusal by the lessor to accept payment of the rent agreed
upon, the lessee may either deposit, by way of consignation, the amount
in court, or with the city or municipal treasurer, as the case may be, or
barangay chairman, or in a bank in the name of and with notice to the
lessor, within one (1) month after the refusal of the lessor to accept
payment.

The lessee shall thereafter deposit the rent within ten (10) days of every
current month. Failure to deposit the rent for three (3) months shall
constitute a ground for ejectment.

The lessor, upon authority of the court in case of consignation or upon

joint affidavit by him and the lessee to be submitted to the city or
municipal treasurer or barangay chairman and to the bank where deposit
was made, shall be allowed to withdraw the deposits;

Legitimate need of the owner/lessor to repossess his or her property for

his or her own use of for the use of an immediate member of his or her
family as a residential unit: Provided, however, That the lease for a
definite period has expired: Provided, further, That the lessor has given
the lessee the formal notice three (3) months in advance of the lessor's
intention to repossess the property and: Provided, finally, That the
owner/lessor is prohibited from leasing the residential unit or allowing its
use by a third party for a period of at least one (1) year from the time of
repossession;

Expiration of the period of the lease contract.”

       The foregoing provision directly governs your situation wherein it specified the
payment process of your lessee’s unpaid rent, as well as arrears in rent for a total of 3
months being a valid ground for judicial ejectment of your lessee.

If such arrears is not a total of 3 months of rent, the expiration of the period of the
lease contract may also be used as a ground for action. 

Paragraph (bb), Section 4 of the Republic Act 11469: Bayanihan to Heal As

One Act provides:

“Provide for a minimum of thirty (30)-day grace period on residential rents

falling due within the period of the enhanced community quarantine,
without incurring interests, penalties, fees, and other charges.”

Paragraph (3.1), (3.2), Section 2 of DTI MC No. 20-31, in conjunction with

the foregoing provision, provides:

“The due date of rent subject to the thirty (30)-day grace period falls within
the declared community quarantine, whether ECQ, MECQ, and GCQ;

As set forth in DTI MC No. 20-12, S.2020, the grant by the lessor of a
minimum thirty (30)-day grace period for residential rent shall commence
from the last due date or from the lifting of the ECQ, MECQ, and   GCQ,
whichever is longer, without incurring interests, penalties, fees, and other
charges.”

       As against Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the above-mentioned

provision will prevail in regards with the grace period given to the lessee.
       You will have to give your tenant the thirty (30)-day grace period as the property
is within the declared community quarantine. If such grace period is violated, you may
be faced with a complaint with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Memorandum Circular No. 20-31 and an appropriate criminal case may be filed in
appropriate courts against you.

Applicable Jurisprudence

In the case of Alejandro vs Amor and Aguilar 1, the Supreme Court convicted
Amor and Aguilar with unjust vexation for padlocking the door of the said unit which is
penalized under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. 

In the case of Melchor Maderazo vs People of the Philippines 2, the Supreme

Court convicted Melchor Maderazo for padlocking the door of a certain stall -- this overt
act caused annoyance, irritation and vexation of the owner. Grave coercion was
dismissed since the case lacked violence. In order for a case fall under grave coercion
the following must be present:

a. That a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by

law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong;

b. That the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or

intimidation; and

c. That the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do
so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in
the exercise of any lawful right.

1
G.R. No. 179243, September 7, 2011

2
G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006
  In the case of People of the Philippines vs Ibrahim 3, the Supreme Court
convicted Ibrahim for Kidnapping and Illegal Detention for depriving the liberty of his
victim against her will which is penalized under Article 267 of Revised Penal Code.

Analysis & Conclusion

In view of the foregoing circumstances, it is deemed that Mr. Glen Noble failed to
pay his rent despite the continuous occupation of the subject property. As stated in
Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which should be your initial step before we
proceed with other legal remedies, we should serve a demand letter in writing asking
Mr. Noble to comply with the conditions of your contract of lease or vacate the said
property if the same is incapable of paying or still refuses to settle his obligation. With
this step, we can assert Mr. Noble’s willingness to pay his rent. If such demands
remained futile, we can now proceed to our next remedy.

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court discussed unlawful detainer wherein the
same happens when the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld from
the owner or lessor after the expiration of the contract or the termination of lessee’s right
to hold possession. Taking into consideration the concept of Unlawful Detainer, we
consider Mr. Noble as an “Unlawful Detainer”. In cases of unlawful detainer, such may
be a basis for an ejectment action. We may resort to another remedy such as filing a
case for overdue rent for you to recover your money.

I can assure you that the aforementioned actions would prosper more in court
since it is better to resort to legal remedies instead of taking the law into your own
hands and further committing acts in violation thereof. Such acts of locking the door
while your tenant is still inside will only put your freedom at risk. As we pursue legal
actions, the rights of both parties must be still protected.

3
G.R. No. 222965, December 6, 2017
Recommendation 

Based on and subject to the foregoing rights of tenants and property

managers/owners and applying the rule of reason, I am set of the opinion of finding out
first why exactly your tenant is in arrears taking into consideration that you have left the
country for almost a year. Compromise has to be fulfilled sooner as it might resolve the
issue and save both parties from time and financial loss. In most cases, valid reasons
and effective communication prevent conflicts from reaching the courts. But then, if your
tenant is being unresponsive and indicates that he is not willing to take responsibility,
we can then put our notices and demands in writing. I may send a notice to your tenant
outlining his breach of contract and include an option that you are willing to agree on.
However, if your tenant must be evicted as soon, your available remedy should only be
the judicial ejectment proceeding. 

Regarding your question about locking the door of your condominium while your
tenant is inside, I would affirm that this is not the most appropriate action because of the
possible criminal liability as set out in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. You could
deal with an illegal detention case if it lasts for more than three (3) days and a more
serious penalty will be imposed on you if the lessee dies as a consequence of such
action. 

Had it been stipulated in your lease of contract your authority to lock him out of
the condominium unit due to delinquent behavior, makes you free to take that
necessary measure to motivate him to pay. Article 1159 of the New Civil Code provides
that obligations arising from contracts have the force of the law between the contracting
parties. But is important to note though that this is action- locking the tenant out of the
condominium unit and is not yet evicting your tenant. Thus, respect for his belongings
inside the property is necessary and your actions should not be excessive on what is
agreed upon. 

When you're already having a problem with his refusal to leave your property and
your lease of contract does not contain express stipulation on dealing with
delinquencies, you cannot do this action. Your tenant can file a case against you for
grave coercion provided in Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code. In addition, Article
1673 of the New Civil Code expresses that a lessor cannot evict his tenant without first
going through a judicial proceeding in court. 

After exerting all necessary efforts and if your tenant still refused to take
responsibility, you can file a case for collection of overdue rent and eviction. Eviction
does not happen in an instant; you will need to wait for the tenant's response from the
notices given to him and should not take the matter into your hands. The police will be
the one to evict the tenant through a court order. 

I appreciate the opportunity to advise you regarding this matter. Please let me
know if you wish to discuss any of these issues further. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Atty. Group Five