Short answer. No. Lack of payment is a ground for the lessor to eject the lessee judicially, and the word in Article 1673 is deliberate. Locking a tenant out, removing their belongings or cutting utilities is not self-help under Article 429, because a tenant did not enter by unlawful invasion.
What the law says
The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following causes
Civil Code, Article 1673 — Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
Civil Code, Article 429 — Doctrine of Self-Help. Read the full provision →
One word carries the whole answer
Article 1673 opens with the phrase that settles the question: The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following causes. Non-payment is on the list, so a lessor who says there is a ground is right about that much. What the lessor does not have is any way to act on the ground alone. The provision grants a right to eject through a court and grants no matching right to eject without one. On this point a tenant who is genuinely months in arrears and a tenant who is fully paid up stand in the same position: neither may be removed by the lessor's own hand.
The grounds the article actually lists
The listed causes are expiry of the period agreed upon or fixed by law; lack of payment of the price stipulated; violation of any condition agreed upon in the contract; and devoting the property to a use not stipulated where that causes deterioration. Arrears are therefore a ground in themselves, and the lessor does not have to show damage on top of them. Note the closing line as well: the ejectment of tenants of agricultural lands is governed by special laws, so a farm tenancy is not resolved by this article at all and reasoning from it will mislead you.
Why self-help does not rescue a lock-out
Lessors reach instead for the doctrine of self-help, which says an owner or lawful possessor has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. It does not fit these facts. That right is exercisable against an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion, meaning someone forcing entry now. A tenant entered with the lessor's own consent under a contract; what has ended is the right to stay, not the lawfulness of the entry. Changing locks, removing belongings, cutting water or power, or stationing people at the door therefore sits outside Article 429, and it hands the tenant a case the lessor never had to face.
What a lessor should do instead
Make a written demand for payment or for the property, delivered in a way you can prove, and keep the lease, the ledger of payments received and every receipt issued. Those documents are what an ejectment case is built from, and the date of the demand is usually the date from which everything else is counted. Where the property is residential and the rent modest, rent control legislation may affect which increases and grounds are available, so check whether it covers your unit before relying on the contract alone. Then file. Rent keeps accruing meanwhile, and it can be claimed alongside possession.
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.
- Cebu Autometric Motos, Inc. vs. Tirso Uytengsu III, G.R. No. 151168, August 25, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Hernania "Lani" Lopez vs. Gloria Umale-Cosme, G.R. No. 171891, February 24, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Abaya Investments Corporation vs. Merit Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 176324, April 16, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- David G. Dula vs. Dr. Restituto Maravilla, et al, G.R. No. 134267, May 9, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1657 — Obligations of the Lessee
- Civil Code, Article 1687 — Term of a Lease With No Fixed Period