Short answer. Under Article 1687, when no period is fixed the lease is understood to run from week to week if the rent is weekly, and from day to day if the rent is paid daily. The rent interval sets the term, though a court may fix a longer period once the tenant has stayed long enough.
What the law says
from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily
Civil Code, Article 1687 — Term of a Lease With No Fixed Period. Read the full provision →
The rent interval sets the term
When a lease does not state how long it lasts, Article 1687 fills the gap by looking at how the rent is paid. It provides that a lease with no fixed period is understood to be from year to year for annual rent, from month to month for monthly rent, and — the part that answers your question — from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. So the payment cycle becomes the lease period. A daily-rent arrangement is treated as a day-to-day lease, and a weekly one as a week-to-week lease, unless something longer is agreed.
What a periodic lease means for ending it
Treating the lease as day-to-day or week-to-week affects how it ends. A periodic lease renews with each interval and can be brought to a close at the end of a period, rather than running for a long fixed stretch. That cuts both ways: it gives flexibility, but it also means the security of a daily or weekly tenant is inherently shorter than that of one with an annual term. The rule does not itself excuse either party from other obligations of the lease, such as paying the agreed rent or using the premises properly; it only supplies the duration the parties left unstated.
The court may extend a short term
Article 1687 does not leave short-term tenants entirely at the mercy of the interval. It allows a court to fix a longer period in certain cases. Where the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. For daily rent, the courts may fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month. This judicial power tempers the harshness of a bare day-to-day or week-to-week term, letting a court grant a reasonable extension to a tenant who has already occupied the property for the stated minimum time.
Limits of the extension power
The court's authority to lengthen the term is discretionary and conditional, not automatic. It arises only after the tenant has been in possession beyond the periods the article names — over one month for daily rent, over six months for weekly rent — and the court must find it proper to grant more time. It is not a guarantee of a long stay, and it does not convert a periodic lease into an indefinite one. A tenant hoping for an extension should be prepared to show why a longer period is warranted, while an owner should understand that a short interval does not always mean an immediate right to eject.
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 →