Can a landlord evict a tenant for violating a condition in the lease, like a no-pets or no-subletting clause?

The grounds the law recognises

Article 1673 gives a landlord specific, listed reasons to eject a tenant through the courts. In its own words, the lessor may judicially eject the lessee when the agreed or legal period has expired, for lack of payment of the price stipulated, for violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract, or when the tenant misuses the property in a way that causes its deterioration. A broken lease condition is the third of these. The list is the landlord's menu of lawful grounds; a reason not on it, or not fitting one of these categories, is not a basis this article supplies for eviction.

What counts as a 'condition'

The phrase violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract is deliberately wide. It is not limited to non-payment; it reaches whatever obligations the parties actually wrote into their lease. A clause forbidding pets, a clause forbidding subletting or assignment, a clause on how the unit may be used, each is a condition, and breaching it can trigger this ground. The important qualifier is agreed upon in the contract: the restriction has to be part of the lease the tenant accepted. A rule the landlord never included, or imposed later without agreement, does not automatically become an evictable condition.

The landlord must use the courts

Notice the word judicially. This article authorises the landlord to eject the tenant through a court proceeding, not to do it personally. Changing the locks, removing belongings, or cutting off utilities to force a tenant out is not what the provision permits, and self-help of that kind can expose the landlord to liability. The article also carves out agricultural land, stating that the ejectment of tenants of agricultural lands is governed by special laws. For ordinary residential and commercial leases, though, the route is a proper ejectment case decided by a court.

Having a ground is not the same as winning

A landlord who can point to a broken condition still has to prove it, and the tenant is entitled to contest whether the clause existed, whether it was really breached, and whether the breach is serious enough to justify ending the lease. Courts do not treat every minor deviation as warranting eviction. It is also common, and often expected, for the landlord to demand compliance before rushing to court. So the clause in the contract is the starting point, not the finish line. Anyone facing or considering an eviction on this ground should have the lease and the facts reviewed.

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.

• Cebu Autometric Motos, Inc. vs. Tirso Uytengsu III, G.R. No. 151168, August 25, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Hernania "Lani" Lopez vs. Gloria Umale-Cosme, G.R. No. 171891, February 24, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Abaya Investments Corporation vs. Merit Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 176324, April 16, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• David G. Dula vs. Dr. Restituto Maravilla, et al, G.R. No. 134267, May 9, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1673 — Grounds for Judicial Ejectment