Short answer. Possibly. Article 1687 of the Civil Code says that even where monthly rent is paid and no period was set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. It is a discretionary power, not an automatic right to stay.
What the law says
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
Civil Code, Article 1687 — Term of a Lease With No Fixed Period. Read the full provision →
How the law reads a lease with no fixed period
When a lease sets no period, the law supplies one from how the rent is paid. 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. So a tenant paying monthly, with nothing said about duration, holds a month-to-month lease. On that footing the lease can, in principle, be ended at the close of a monthly period. That is the default the next part of the article softens.
The court's power to fix a longer term
The article gives courts a cushioning discretion. It provides that 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. The threshold in your case, over one year of occupancy, opens the door. But note the verb: the court may fix a longer term. It is empowered to extend, not commanded to. The tenant's long stay is what qualifies the situation for the court's consideration, not what guarantees more time.
Discretion means it is not automatic
Because the power is discretionary, meeting the one-year mark does not entitle a tenant to an extension as of right, and it does not freeze the tenant in place indefinitely. A court weighs the circumstances, such as how long the tenant has stayed, the reasons the extension is sought, and the effect on the owner who wants the property back. The extension, if granted, is also a fixed longer term the court sets, not an open-ended tenancy. A tenant should not assume the lease continues on its own simply because he has been there a while.
What this means for tenant and owner
For a tenant facing the end of a month-to-month arrangement after more than a year, the article is a possible avenue to ask a court for a reasonable additional period, especially where an abrupt departure would cause real hardship. For an owner, it is a reminder that ending a long-running monthly lease may not be as immediate as the month-to-month label suggests, since the tenant can invoke this discretion. Either way the outcome rests with the court's judgment on the facts, so both sides are better served by understanding it as a power to extend, exercised case by case.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- David G. Dula vs. Dr. Restituto Maravilla, et al, G.R. No. 134267, May 9, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Leonardo S. Umale (deceased), represented by Clarissa Victoria, et al. all surnamed Umale vs. ASB Realty Corp, G.R. No. 181126, June 15, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Consolacion De Vera vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 110297, August 7, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Malayan Realty, Inc. vs. Uy Han Yong, G.R. No. 163763, November 10, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →