How to Terminate an Implied Lease in the Philippines: A Clear Guide for Landlords and Tenants

When people talk about “implied lease” in the Philippines, it usually refers to a situation where someone continues renting a property without a new written contract, yet the landlord keeps accepting rent. Many Filipinos don’t realize that this is a valid lease under the Civil Code—even if no paperwork exists.

But what happens when either the landlord or the tenant wants to end this arrangement?

Here’s a simple, practical guide.

What Is an Implied Lease?

Under Article 1670 of the Civil Code, an implied lease happens when:

• A written lease expires, or

• There was never a written lease, but the tenant continues occupying the property with the landlord’s consent, and the landlord accepts rent.

This creates a month-to-month lease under Philippine law.

How Do You Terminate an Implied Lease?

1. Give a 30-Day Written Notice

The law is straightforward: an implied lease in the Philippines is monthly, so either party must give 30 days’ written notice before ending it.

You can deliver notice through:

• Personal delivery

• Email or Messenger (if that is your usual communication)

• Registered mail or courier

• Viber or SMS (as long as you keep screenshots)

Tip: Keep proof that the other party received the notice. This becomes important if an ejectment case is needed later.

2. State the Date the Lease Will End

Your notice must clearly say:

• When you are giving the notice

• The exact date the lease will end (at least 30 days later)

• That you are terminating the month-to-month arrangement

This avoids misunderstandings and protects you legally.

3. Allow the 30-Day Period to Run

During this period:

• The tenant can continue staying

• Rent must still be paid

• Both parties must respect the old terms of the lease

  
  

A notice does not require the tenant to leave immediately.

4. If the Tenant Does Not Leave After 30 Days

If the notice period ends and the tenant still refuses to vacate, the landlord may file an Unlawful Detainer case at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).

To file the case, the landlord must show:

• Proof of the implied lease (messages, receipts, screenshots)

• Proof of the 30-day written notice

• Proof that the tenant refused to leave

The court then decides whether eviction is proper.

Important: Do Not Accept Rent After the Notice Ends

If a landlord accepts rent after the end date of the notice, the implied lease is considered renewed, and the 30-day countdown resets.

To avoid this problem:

• Do not accept rent after the termination date, or

• Issue a written statement saying the payment is “for use and occupancy only,” not a renewal of the lease.

Can a Tenant Also Terminate an Implied Lease?

Yes. A tenant may also end an implied lease with 30 days’ written notice to the landlord.

Why Many Implied Lease Disputes Become Court Cases

Most problems come from:

• No written notice

• Accepting rent even after termination

• Arguments over whether consent was given

• Renting only through verbal agreements

This is why documentation—screenshots, messages, Viber, receipts—is very important.

Conclusion

Ending an implied lease is simple in principle:

1. Give a written 30-day notice.

2. State the exact end date.

3. Keep evidence of delivery.

4. File an unlawful detainer case if the tenant refuses to vacate.

   
   

Whether you’re a landlord wanting to regain possession or a tenant planning to move out, following these steps ensures the process is legal, fair, and enforceable.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Philippines is one of the most hybrid-work friendly markets in Asia-Pacific

The Philippine office sector is one of most hybrid work-friendly markets in the Asia-Pacific region, but some firms still face sustainability challenges, according to property consultancy firm Colliers Philippines.

In a survey conducted under its 2026 Asia Pacific Workplace Insights Report, Colliers said that 82% of Philippine organizations are adopting hybrid work models, with 32% looking to invest in workplace upgrades next year.

“Occupiers in the Philippines are moving beyond cost-efficiency to create workplaces that inspire, connect, and deliver lasting value,” Kevin Jara, head and director of office services — tenant representation at Colliers Philippines, said in a statement.

However, 26% of respondents from the Philippines said they are unsure about their sustainability approach, Colliers noted, citing the need for clearer strategies and landlord collaboration.

“While ESG (environmental, social, and governance) priorities remain a work in progress, today’s momentum signals meaningful progress. Indeed, the role of the workplace has evolved from a functional necessity to a strategic driver of culture, collaboration, and productivity,” Mr. Jara said.

Firms that align ESG principles with their workplace strategy could help boost company branding, Colliers said.

Key sustainability practices that offices should adopt include green building design, inclusive layouts, and transparency, it added.

Despite the growing shift to hybrid work, many organizations in the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Singapore, and New Zealand are still enforcing attendance mandates, Colliers noted.

“Attendance mandates remain common, highlighting the region’s ‘hybrid paradox,’ where flexibility exists on paper but traditional structures persist,” Colliers said.

It also noted that assigned seating is still prevalent in many Philippine workplaces, signaling limited agility in office setups.

“Even in flexible offices, early arrivals often claim the same seat. At the same time, some senior leaders are growing quite resistant to hybrid, implying concerns about productivity, collaboration, and culture,” Chris Archibold, Colliers managing director for Offices in Southeast Asia, said in the report.

“Hybrid isn’t a quick fix, it requires clarity, honesty and a deep understanding, of what works for your people, your business, and your market,” he added.

The report also noted that 43% Philippine organizations have already integrated multi-generational needs into their workplace strategies.

“Overall, the Philippines shows strong progress in hybrid adoption and inclusivity, coupled with planned investments. Closing gaps in sustainability and aligning flexibility with culture will be critical for Philippine-based organizations who seek to attract talent and drive long-term performance,” Colliers said.

Across the Asia-Pacific, companies’ work strategies focus on improving productivity (9.43%), talent attraction/retention (8.85%), improving employee experience or well-being (8.48%), and better location (8.11%).

About 74% of firms in the region said that their offices are at least half full on a typical work day, while 45% said their midweek occupancy exceeds 75%, Colliers said. 

For design preferences, Asia-Pacific respondents also noted that they prefer workplaces with natural lighting (17%), biophilic features and green walls (15%), ambient temperature (14%), and more collaboration spaces (13%).

About 20% of the region’s firms use artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools to enhance employee experience, while 20% have no AI integration plans, Colliers said.

“AI has the potential to make workplaces more responsive, adjusting layouts in real-time, tailoring sensory inputs and tracking usage to better align with how people work,” it said in the report.

Colliers surveyed more than 800 corporate occupiers across 11 Asia-Pacific markets, including the Philippines, China, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea.

Source: Business World

Can one marry without a valid marriage license?

As a general rule, couples intending to marry must secure a marriage license from the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either of them habitually resides.

Under Article 3 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines, a valid marriage license is one of the formal requisites of marriage, without which the marriage will be void. Hence, the parties to an intended marriage must secure the same.

However, the general rule is not without exception. Article 34 of the said Code provides that:

“Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.”

The case of Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez (A.M. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001, Ponente: Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.) laid down the requisites in applying the provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation, to wit:

“For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur:

“1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage.

“2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other.

“3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage.

“4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years (and are without legal impediment to marry each other).

“5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.”

The five-year period of cohabitation was further explained in the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog (GR 133778; 14 March 2000; Ponente: Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago), where the Supreme Court ruled that:

“Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as ‘husband and wife’ where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years and continuity — that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.”

Thus, a man and a woman may enter into a contract of marriage even without a marriage license, provided that they have been living together as husband and wife for the last five years prior to the date of the marriage, and that neither of them has any legal impediment to marry each other during the same period.

This continuous five-year common-law cohabitation must be characterized by exclusivity. Moreover, both of them must execute an affidavit stating this fact, and the solemnizing officer is also required to execute a sworn statement pronouncing that he has ascertained their qualifications and that he has found no legal impediment to said marriage.

Source: Manila Times