Short answer. Yes, by default. Under Article 1687, when no lease period was fixed and you pay rent monthly, the lease is understood to be from month to month. But the same article lets a court fix a longer term once you have occupied the premises for over one year.
What the law says
If the period for the lease has not been fixed, 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.
Civil Code, Article 1687 — Term of a Lease With No Fixed Period. Read the full provision →
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 →
The default period follows how you pay rent
Article 1687 supplies the term when the parties never set one. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, 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 if you pay monthly and fixed no period, your lease is, by default, a month-to-month lease. The frequency of the rent — not the total amount — decides the period the law reads into the agreement.
What month-to-month means in practice
Treating the lease as month to month has real effects. Each month is, in effect, a lease period; the arrangement renews as each month's rent falls due and is paid. Because the term is short and recurring, either side can generally bring the lease to an end at the close of a monthly period, subject to the notice the law and any special rent statutes require. This is why a tenant paying monthly with no written term does not enjoy the security of a long fixed lease — the default period is only a month at a time.
Courts may fix a longer term after a year
The default is not the whole story. Article 1687 adds 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. So a tenant who has stayed for more than a year is not necessarily limited to month-to-month treatment; a court has discretion to fix a longer period. The article gives parallel powers for weekly rent, after possession of over six months, and for daily rent, after over one month of occupancy.
What this article does not do
Article 1687 fixes the period of an unwritten, no-term lease; it does not, by itself, set the rent, bar a proper increase, or override the grounds and notice rules for ejectment found in other laws, including special rent-control legislation that may apply to your unit. Nor does the court's power to fix a longer term arise automatically — it is discretionary and depends on the circumstances, including your length of occupancy. The article answers the timing question: with monthly rent and no agreed period, your lease is month to month, unless and until a court fixes a longer term.
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 →