Text of the provision
Art. 1673. The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following causes:
(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired;
(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;
(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract;
(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use or service not stipulated which causes the deterioration thereof; or if he does not observe the requirement in No. 2 of article 1657, as regards the use thereof. The ejectment of tenants of agricultural lands is governed by special laws.
(1569a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for: expiry of the term, non-payment of rent, violation of conditions, or misuse/deterioration of the thing. Ejectment of agricultural tenants is governed by special laws.
Related provisions
- Article 1672 — Sureties in an Implied New Lease.
- Article 1674 — Ejectment Appeals.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Mark Anthony Esteban (in substitution of the deceased Gabriel O. Esteban) vs. Sps. Rodrigo C. Marcelo and Carmen T. Marcelo, G.R. No. 197725, July 31, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.