Short answer. It turns on how the landlord reacted. If the tenant stays fifteen days with the lessor's acquiescence and neither side had given notice, an implied new lease arises on the old terms but for a short period. If the lessor gave notice or objected, the tenant is simply withholding possession.

What the law says

If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given

Civil Code, Article 1670 — Implied New Lease (Tacita Reconduccion). Read the full provision →

What the law says

The other terms of the original contract shall be revived.

Civil Code, Article 1670 — Implied New Lease (Tacita Reconduccion). Read the full provision →

Three conditions, all of them required

The implied new lease arises only where three things line up: if at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given. Continued enjoyment, fifteen days, acquiescence, and no prior notice from either side. Remove any one and there is no new lease at all. That is why the same facts can produce two completely different situations depending on a letter the lessor either did or did not send before the term ran out.

Acquiescence is a question of conduct

Acquiescence is not a signature; it is behaviour. A lessor who says nothing for a fortnight while the tenant carries on as before, and particularly one who accepts rent for the period after expiry, is difficult to hear later saying the stay was never allowed. Conversely, a lessor who wrote before the expiry asking the tenant to vacate has given the notice to the contrary the article speaks of, and mere silence afterwards does not undo it. Both sides should understand that the fifteen days after expiry are the decisive ones, and that accepting or refusing rent within them speaks loudly.

What the new lease looks like

Where one does arise, it is not a renewal of the original contract. The period is the one the law fixes for that kind of lease rather than the original term, so a one-year lease that lapses into an implied new lease with monthly rent becomes a month-to-month arrangement, not another year. Everything else carries over, because the other terms of the original contract shall be revived: the same rent, the same repair allocation, the same rules on use. What has been lost is the security of a fixed term, which is the part tenants tend to assume survives.

If no implied lease arose

Then the tenant is holding property they no longer have a right to hold, and the expiry of the period is itself a ground for judicial ejectment. Even so, the lessor cannot take the unit back by changing locks or cutting utilities, and doing so converts a straightforward case into a contested one. The practical steps are the same for both sides: fix the date the term ended, find any written notice given before it and keep proof of when it was sent, and account for every payment offered or accepted afterwards. Those three facts decide the whole question.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.