When a lease is impliedly renewed after it expired, do the other terms of the old contract still apply?

The old terms revive, the term does not

Article 1670 deals with what happens when a lease has ended but the tenant stays on with the landlord's acquiescence. If the lessee keeps enjoying the property for fifteen days after the term ends, and neither side has given notice to the contrary, the law says it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived. So two things happen at once: the old contract's terms come back to life, but its duration is replaced by a shorter, statute-set period.

Which terms come back

'The other terms' means the conditions that governed the parties' relationship apart from the length of the lease, for instance the rent, the permitted use of the property, and the ordinary obligations each side carried. These are treated as continuing, so the parties are not thrown into a lawless holdover; they go on under the arrangement they already knew. The important exception is the period itself, which the article expressly detaches from the revived terms. The renewed lease is a genuinely new one on old conditions, with a fresh, shorter clock, not a simple extension of the contract that expired.

How long the implied lease lasts

Because the original term is not revived, the length of the new lease is set by law according to how the rent was reserved: leases are treated as running year to year when the rent is annual, month to month when it is monthly, and so on down to daily. In practice this usually produces a short renewal, commonly month to month for residential rentals paid monthly, that either party can end at the close of each period. This is what makes an implied new lease a modest safety net rather than a trap: it preserves the terms while keeping the commitment short and easy to end.

How to avoid or control an implied renewal

The mechanism only operates when the landlord acquiesces and no contrary notice was given, so both sides can control it. A landlord who does not want the tenancy to roll over should give notice and not simply let the tenant remain past the term; a tenant who wants a longer, secure term should negotiate a new written lease rather than rely on this default. Because the revived terms and the shortened period can surprise people who assumed the old contract simply continued in full, it is worth being clear, in writing, about whether a stay past the end date is a true renewal or merely this limited implied one.

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 Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Allan Mañas, joined by wife Lena Isabelle Y. Mañas vs. Rosalina Roca Nicolasora, et, G.R. No. 208845, February 3, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• PNTC Colleges, Inc. vs. Time Realty, Inc, G.R. No. 219698, September 27, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Anita C. Buce vs. Spouses George Galeon and Erlinda Tiongco Galeon, et al, G.R. No. 222785, March 2, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1670 — Implied New Lease (Tacita Reconduccion)