You are on page 1of 5

Implied contract

VIEGELY SAMELO, represented by


Attorney-in-Fact CRISTINA SAMELO
Petitioner,- versus -MANOTOK
SERVICES, INC., allegedly represented
by PERPETUA BOCANEGRA
(deceased),Respondent.

G.R. No. 170509

An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any
land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied.1[16]
The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of
the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved. 2[17]
Thus, when the relationship of lessor and lessee is established in an unlawful detainer case, any
attempt of the parties to inject the question of ownership into the case is futile, except insofar as it
might throw light on the right of possession.3[18]
Antonio Unica vs. Anscor Swire Ship Management Corporation ; G.R. No. 184318;
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the seafarer and held that there was implied renewal of the
contract since the seafarer was allowed to stay after the termination of his contract.
G.R. No. L-13602
April 6, 1918LEUNG BEN, plaintiff,
vs.
P. J. O'BRIEN, JAMES A OSTRAND and GEO. R. HARVEY, judges of First Instance of
city of Manila,

Manresa, commenting upon article 1262 of the Civil Code, says:


The essence of consent is the agreement of the parties concerning that which is to
constitute the contract . . . . The forms of this agreement may vary according to whether it
is expressed verbally or in writing, by words or by acts. Leaving the other differences for
consideration hereafter, we will only refer now to those which exist between express
consent and implied consent . . . . It is unquestionable that implied consent manifested by
act or conduct, produces a contract. . . .
If it were necessary to have recourse to the English common law for the purpose of ascertaining
the meaning of the phrase under consideration, we could find many decisions which gave it the
same meaning as that for which I contend.

1
2
3

An implied contract is where one party receives benefits from another party, under such
circumstances that the law presume a promise on the part of the party benefited to pay a
reasonable price for the same. (Jones vs. Tucker [Del.], 84 Atlantic, 1012.)
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 152411. September 29, 2004]
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. PHILAB INDUSTRIES, INC.,
respondent.
We agree with the petitioner that, based on the records, an implied-in-fact contract of sale
was entered into between the respondent and FEMF. A contract implied in fact is one
implied from facts and circumstances showing a mutual intention to contract. It arises
where the intention of the parties is not expressed, but an agreement in fact creating an
obligation. It is a contract, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct
and not by direct or explicit words between parties but is to be deduced from conduct of
the parties, language used, or things done by them, or other pertinent circumstances
attending the transaction. To create contracts implied in fact, circumstances must warrant
inference that one expected compensation and the other to pay.[32] An implied-in-fact
contract requires the parties intent to enter into a contract; it is a true contract.[33] The
conduct of the parties is to be viewed as a reasonable man would view it, to determine the
existence or not of an implied-in-fact contract.[34] The totality of the acts/conducts of the
parties must be considered to determine their intention. An implied-in-fact contract will
not arise unless the meeting of minds is indicated by some intelligent conduct, act or sign.
[35]

G.R. No. 170509


Article 1670. 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, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for
the period of the original contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The
other terms of the original contract shall be revived.

An implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will set in when the following requisites
are found to exist: a) the term of the original contract of lease has expired; b) the lessor has not
given the lessee a notice to vacate; and c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for
fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor. [20] As earlier discussed, all these requisites have
been fulfilled in the present case.

AREVALO

GOMEZ

CORPORATION,

petitioner,

vs.
ANDERS LAO HIAN LIONG, doing business in the name and style of "TIONGSON
BAZAAR" and The Honorable SALVADOR J. VALDEZ, JR., respondents.
Applying Article 1670 of Civil Code, the trial court held in favor of the defendant as
follows:
In the case on hand, it is admitted that the 15-year lease contract
between the parties expired on August 31, 1979. However, the defendant
has continued occupying the leased premises thereafter and even to this
day. And it was only on October 2, 1979, or after more than 15 days after
the expiration of the original contract of lease, that he was given the
requisite notice to vacate. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that under the
law, an implied new lease had already set in when the plaintiff
commenced its action for ejectment on November 19, 1979. ... 3

JOVEN YUKI, JR.,


Petitioner,

G.R. No. 178527


Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*


BRION,
DEL CASTILLO, and
ABAD, JJ.
WELLINGTON CO,
Respondent.

Promulgated:

The lessee-petitioners attempt to hold on to the property subject of the instant unlawful detainer
case, by resorting to fraudulent machinations such as refusing to receive the notices to vacate,
must not be countenanced. His stubborn refusal to receive the notices to vacate should not
prejudice the right of the lessor-respondent, to use and enjoy the fruits of his property.

*
*

Viegely Samelo, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Cristina Samelo vs. Manotok Services,


Inc., etc.; G.R. No. 170509, June 27, 2012.

Since the rent was paid on a monthly basis, the period of lease is considered to be from
month to month, in accordance with Article 1687 of the Civil Code. [A] lease from
month to month is considered to be one with a definite period which expires at the end of
each month upon a demand to vacate by the lessor. When the respondent sent a notice
to vacate to the petitioner on August 5, 1998, the tacita reconduccion was aborted, and
the contract is deemed to have expired at the end of that month. [A] notice to vacate
constitutes an express act on the part of the lessor that it no longer consents to the
continued occupation by the lessee of its property. After such notice, the lessees right to
continue in possession ceases and her possession becomes one of detainer.
Implied Contract: An implied contract is one for which the proposal or acceptance is made
otherwise than in words. Where the proposal or acceptance of any promise is made otherwise
than in words, the promise is known as implied promise. Implied contracts are inferred from the
circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. For example, when A takes a cup of milk in
a hotel, there is an implied contract.