re: Philippine Laws on Tenancy and Leasing?
341804
there is no legal justification of the three FREE months' stay that she is insisting on - here in the philippines or anywhere else in earth - unless you have it on your contract.  but assuming that there is no mention of this in your contract, there is no legal basis for this.  there is, however, a special law in the Civil Code and in the Rental Reform Act of 2002 (RA 9161) which states that you have to inform your tenant of your intention to terminate lease at least three months before the intended date.  maybe that is what she is quoting, only she got it all wrong.  if your contract is legal and not yet expired, this special law may not be followed, depending on what you can amicably settle on a primary hearing (that is, contract first before special laws - supplementary in these cases).\n\nAs for her not being able to pay five months of rent, this is a different story.  after the third consecutive month of her inability to pay the rent, you have the right to judicial ejectment, wherein after 5 days of notice (demand letters, written notices signed by both parties), you have the right to file for unlawful detainer and have your tenant ejected immediately.  this is your right that is given by the civil code.\n\nwhat you can do is to consult a legal professional (civil lawyer) and file for a complaint on the arbitration committee of your community or town.  if you do not reach an amicable settlement, it is your right to file for action against your tenant.
383969
For a primary residence no.\n\nOn rental properties this may differ.
1102386
If it does not state that those were included specifically IN THE LEASE, then it is very unlikely that you can do anything at all. I suggest you read your lease carefully and, if after reading it you still have reason to believe you should have had both items, I suggest you speak to a lawyer. There may be nothing you can do.
549638
there's most likely a clause in the lease saying they can enter when they deem it necessary, like putting out a fire if you're not there, or checking for a reported problem when you're gone.  he's probably just abusing this.  either deal with it or suck it up and move.
547327
G.R. No. L-44678 April 8, 1986\n\nFRANCISCO BALIGWAT, petitioner, \nvs.\nHON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALBINO ESTAVOS, respondents.\n\nRamon P. Mabanag for petitioner. \n\nDulcisimo Tampus for private respondent. \n\n \n\nPATAJO, J.:\n\nIn this petition for review of the decision of the then Court of Appeals dated July 20, 1976, petitioner, the tenant of private respondent over 1 1/2 hectares land devoted exclusively to coconut trees, seeks a ruling from this Court that personal cultivation by the landowner, one of the grounds for the dispossession of a tenant under Section 50 of Republic Act 1199, otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, had been repealed by Section 7 of Republic Act 6389, and that, therefore, he could not be ejected from the landholding in question on the alleged ground that the landowner wanted to cultivate the land himself personally. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Court of Agrarian Reforms which denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner of the complaint to eject him from the landholding in question, said Court holding that Section 7 of Republic Act 6389 amending Section 36 of the Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines, Republic Act 3844 deleting personal cultivation by the lessor-owner as ground for dispossessing the tenant-lessee does not apply to coconut lands. \n\nThe undisputed facts of this case is stated by the Court of Appeals in its decision subject of the present petition for review as follows: \n\nDefendant Francisco Baligwat is the tenant of plaintiff Albino Estavas over one and one-half hectares of his coconut land in Pualas, Tubod, Lanao del Norte, Estavas wanted to eject Baligwat because he wanted to cultivate the land personally, so he notified the defendant of his desire to personally cultivate the land one year before he filed this case on April 4, 1972 by sending a letter (Exhibit 'B') written on February 7, 1971, addressed to the defendant at Pualas, Tubod, Lanao del Norte. He mailed that letter by ordinary mail and the defendant received it through the Barrio Captain. He also complied with the requirements of law to inform the Court regarding his desire to personally cultivate the land as shown by a copy of the notice he filed in Court, (Exhibit 'C') received on February 15, 1971 (Exhibit 'C-l').\n\nAfter one year, he sent another letter to the defendant re-minding him that after February, 1972, the latter was to vacate the premises (Exhibit 'D'). Because the defendant did not vacate the premises, plaintiff filed his petition in this case on April 4, 1972 (Exhibit 'E'). \n\nEstavas wanted to personally cultivate the land because he had no job and he has had experience as farmer of the coconut land of his father. The entire area of the coconut land is 26 hectares. The tenanted area of the said land is one hectare and a half. Plaintiff has four children all of majority age, with children of their own. He wants to cultivate personally the area of one and a half hectares use the rest of the 26 hectares are cultivated by his children who are all farmers, including the only one of them who is employed and who visits the place every month. Four hectares of the land were acquired by his wife and the other portions were acquired by him and his wife. He has a house on the land in question. Three of his children have their own houses on the portions of land they are occupying and cultivating. \n\nWe are in full agreement with the holding of the Court of Appeals upholding the Court a quo that insofar as coconut lands are concerned, personal cultivation by the owner-lessor, a ground for dispossession of the tenant-lessee under Section 50 of Republic Act 1199, is still a valid ground for dispossession of a tenant. This is so because Section 35 of Republic Act 3844 expressly provides that with respect to lands principally planted to citrus, coconuts, cacao, durian and other similar permanent
881058
Talk to the CAB about the tenant rights. They will be able to give you the specifics, and they're free!
453960
I think your getting hosed. The federal government sets standards for tenants and landlords. You should have received a notice of some sort unless it states otherwise in your lease agreement. Be careful there are some really shady dealers out there and this one might be trying to slip one by you. If you have to contact a lawyer for further advice you might actually be able to find one to advise for free over the phone. Good Luck! J
123963
Not enough. The laws are very much in favor of the rentee. There are some recourses but they take a long time to implement.
338611
Because it's likely in the lease. Rent might be different if more people were living there. I know that if I'm to have a guest for more than 2 weeks I need to inform my landlord and get their permission.
909003
Sounds legal to me.\n\nBut, check out a book, "Tenent's Rights" (or some such title) by Nolo Press at the booksore, library, or at www.nolo.com .  They have a California-specific version that should address this *exact* situation.
125387
There are laws made to protect the tenants from eveil landlords. Of which the good ones would follow by applying common sense anyway.\n\nHere is a link to get you started:\n\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Landlord-tenant
777086
It doesn't sound like the owner should have. But you don't know exactly what was in the lease either. Those leases can have all kinds of loopholes in them. Then again, the owner might have thought no one would ask for it back.
380011
Depends on the state.  You obivously have internet.  Look up your state's landlord tenant laws.
493220
Every state and municipality has statutes and regulations governing the landlord-tenant relationship.\n\nI didn't read your little essay because it wasn't a question.
556707
Unfortunately, I think it is legal; my apartment complex does the same. I think it has something to do with the property owner's business choices superceding your choices, since ultimately you can choose not to live there, you know?\n\nI think it's retarded and I hate it too.
914092
What kind of lease. Vehicle, property, business.\nI cant see how owing money every week to someone for something can be deemed as an asset, unless its business lease say a hotel or something. This you would be able to sell on.
54708
You probably have to be more specific to get a uauful answer.  Are you asking about "palimony?" Tenant/landlord law? (In which case you should say if you are in NYC or not.) Child custody issues?  Visitation rights in the hospital? Inheritance rights?  These are all address differently, in diffreent places in the law.