Short answer. It depends on the actual ground for ejectment. Article 1675 gives a lessee the right to the periods in Articles 1682 and 1687, except in the situations Article 1673 lists as grounds for judicial ejectment. Expiration of the lease term is itself one of those four grounds, so which one truly applies to you matters.
What the law says
Except in cases stated in article 1673, the lessee shall have a right to make use of the periods established in articles 1682 and 1687.
Civil Code, Article 1675 — Lessee's Right to the Statutory Periods. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired
Civil Code, Article 1673 — Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. Read the full provision →
The general right Article 1675 grants
Article 1675 gives lessees a benefit tied to two other articles: except in cases stated in article 1673, the lessee shall have a right to make use of the periods established in articles 1682 and 1687. Those referenced articles set how long a lease lasts when no fixed period was agreed on, whether the property is rural or the rent is paid by the year, month, week, or day, and they let courts extend that period further once a tenant has occupied the property beyond certain thresholds. As a general matter, a lessee is entitled to the benefit of those periods.
The exception: the four grounds in Article 1673
That general right does not apply across the board. It is expressly excepted "in cases stated in article 1673," which lists the grounds on which a lessor may judicially eject a lessee: expiration of the agreed or statutorily fixed period, non-payment of the stipulated rent, violation of the contract's conditions, and misuse of the property that causes deterioration. One of those four grounds is precisely the expiration of the lease: when the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired.
Why plain expiration sits inside the exception
This is the detail that makes your situation less than straightforward: the very ground of "the period has expired" already incorporates Articles 1682 and 1687 into how that expiration is measured for a lease with no fixed term. So the periods in those articles are not simply an extra layer of protection sitting on top of an already-expired lease; they are what determines, in the first place, whether the lease has genuinely expired under Article 1673's first ground. Whether Article 1675 gives you something more beyond that turns on exactly which of the four grounds is truly being invoked against you.
What this means for your situation
Because the answer depends on which specific ground under Article 1673 your landlord is relying on, it is worth pinning that down precisely rather than treating "the lease expired" as a self-explanatory label. If your lease had no fixed period and the landlord is relying on the duration rules in Articles 1682 or 1687 to say it has now run out, those very periods, including any court discretion to extend them after long occupancy, are already part of that determination. Establishing exactly how your lease's duration was fixed, and whether it was genuinely reached, is the real question before Article 1675's protection can be assessed.
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.
- 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 →
- LL and Company Development and Agro-Industrial Corporation vs. Huang Chao Chun and Yang Tung Fa, G.R. No. 142378, March 7, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- La Jolla, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 115851, June 20, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose L. Chua, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 109840, January 21, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →