Short answer. He is a possessor in bad faith. Article 1671 provides that a lessee who continues enjoying the thing after the expiration of the contract, over the lessor's objection, is subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith. Your objection is what produces that result.
What the law says
If the lessee continues enjoying the thing after the expiration of the contract, over the lessor's objection, the former shall be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith.
Civil Code, Article 1671 — Continued Possession Over Objection. Read the full provision →
He is no longer a tenant at all
Article 1671 provides that If the lessee continues enjoying the thing after the expiration of the contract, over the lessor's objection, the former shall be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith. The label matters more than it sounds. He is not holding under a lease on the old terms, and he is not holding under a new one. He is occupying property he knows he has no right to occupy, and the law's rules on bad-faith possession, rather than the terms of a contract that has expired, now describe what he owes you.
Your objection is the whole of it
Compare Article 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee continues enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and no notice to the contrary was previously given by either party, an implied new lease arises, not for the period of the original contract but for the term the law supplies. So silence for a fortnight is not neutral: it creates a fresh tenancy. Article 1671 applies only where you objected, which is why an owner who wants the property back should object clearly, in writing, and before that fifteen-day window closes.
What bad-faith possession imports
Article 549 sets out the consequences. A possessor in bad faith must reimburse the fruits received and those the legitimate possessor could have received, which in a tenancy means the reasonable value of the occupation for the whole period he overstayed, not merely the old rent. His right to expenses is cut down to the necessary expenses referred to in Article 546, and expenses incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure are not refunded to him, although he may remove the objects where that can be done without damage.
Getting the property back
None of this entitles an owner to take the premises himself. Article 1669 provides that a lease made for a determinate time ceases upon the day fixed without need of a demand, and Article 1673 lists expiration of the agreed period, along with lack of payment and violation of the conditions agreed upon, among the causes for which the lessor may judicially eject the lessee. The remedy is a court action. What you should be assembling now is the lease itself, the dated objection, and evidence of the going rental value of the property during the overstay.
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.
- Hubert Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc, G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1671 — Continued Possession Over Objection
- Civil Code, Article 1670 — Implied New Lease (Tacita Reconduccion)
- Civil Code, Article 1669 — Lease for a Fixed Term Ends Automatically
- Civil Code, Article 1673 — Grounds for Judicial Ejectment
- Civil Code, Article 549 — Possessor In Bad Faith: Fruits