The acquisition of a rented residential property by a new owner invariably raises the question: Can the new landlord evict the existing tenants simply because he now owns the property?

The short, unequivocal answer under Philippine law is no — change of ownership alone is never a ground for eviction. The new landlord steps into the shoes of the old landlord and is bound by the existing lease contract. The tenant’s right of possession continues until the lease expires or until one of the exclusive statutory grounds for judicial ejectment exists.

This principle is enshrined in both the Civil Code and Republic Act No. 9653 (Rent Control Act of 2009, as amended), and has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court even after the formal lapse of certain provisions of RA 9653. The rules discussed below remain the prevailing doctrine in 2025, applied by courts nationwide even for units no longer technically covered by the expired rent-control threshold.

Legal Framework Governing the Issue

Civil Code of the Philippines (RA 386)
- Art. 1650 – The transferee (new owner) is subrogated to all the rights and obligations of the transferor (old landlord).
- Art. 1676 – The purchaser of leased property may terminate the lease only if the lease is not recorded in the Registry of Property and there is no stipulation to the contrary. Since 99% of residential leases in the Philippines are not annotated on the title, this article is almost never a bar to the new owner’s rights.
- Art. 1687 – If the period is not fixed, the lease is deemed to be month-to-month, and may only be terminated for just cause.
Republic Act No. 9653 (Rent Control Act of 2009, as amended)
Although the price-ceiling and rent-increase limitations of RA 9653 technically expired on 31 December 2017 (and no new national rent-control law has replaced it as of December 2025), the Supreme Court and lower courts continue to apply the eviction provisions of Section 9 of RA 9653 as the most recent expression of legislative policy on protected tenants. HUDCC Opinion No. 01, series of 2018, and numerous Supreme Court decisions (e.g., G.R. No. 241290, 28 June 2020; G.R. No. 209377, 13 July 2021) explicitly state that the grounds for ejectment under RA 9653 remain good law.
Jurisprudence (binding even on deregulated units)
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the grounds in RA 9653 Section 9 are exclusive and continue to be applied by analogy or as customary law (Chua v. Victorio, G.R. No. 207750, 15 March 2022; Spouses Layos v. Fil-Estate, G.R. No. 237733, 09 August 2023).

Exclusive Grounds for Judicial Ejectment (RA 9653, Section 9)

A new landlord may only evict through a judicial ejectment case on any of the following grounds:

Unauthorized assignment or subleasing (including bedspacing/boarders without written consent of owner).
Non-payment of rent for a total of three (3) months (even if not consecutive), provided the lessor did not refuse tender of payment.
Legitimate need of the owner/lessor to repossess the property for his own use or for the use of his immediate family member as a residential unit, subject to the following strict conditions (this is the ground most commonly invoked by new owners):
- The need must be personal, actual, genuine and reasonable (not merely desirable).
- If the lease has a fixed term, the term must have already expired (personal use cannot prematurely terminate a fixed-term lease).
- The lessor must give the lessee formal written notice at least three (3) months in advance of the intention to repossess.
- After eviction, the owner is prohibited from renting the unit to any third party for at least one (1) full year. Violation of this prohibition is prima facie evidence of bad faith and renders the ejectment void.
- The owner must prove he has no other available residential property suitable for the purpose.
Need to make necessary repairs or renovations that are so extensive as to render the premises uninhabitable during the work, or when the building has been condemned by the proper authority. The evicted tenant has first preference to lease the premises again after repairs.
Expiration of the period of a written lease contract (for fixed-term leases).

Can a New Owner Validly Invoke “Personal Use” (Ground No. 3)?

Yes — and this is the single most effective weapon of new landlords.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of a purchaser to eject existing tenants for personal or family use, provided the requirements above are met.

Landmark rulings:

Du v. Stronghold Insurance (G.R. No. 156580, 14 June 2004) – The purchaser in good faith may eject the lessee for personal use.
Chuatoco v. Co (G.R. No. 207750, 15 March 2022) – Reaffirmed that the new owner’s need is valid even if the need arose after the purchase.
Spouses Ong v. CA (G.R. No. 231477, 06 October 2020) – The one-year no-reletting rule is strictly enforced; violation voids the ejectment.
Fil-Estate Properties v. Spouses Go (G.R. No. 237733, 09 August 2023) – The new owner must prove the absence of bad faith (e.g., no collusion with the previous owner to circumvent tenant protections).

Practical reality in 2025: Courts almost always grant ejectment when the new owner:

is a natural person (not a corporation),
personally appears in court and testifies,
shows he/she has no other house,
gives the required 3-month notice, and
does not re-let the property within one year.

What the New Landlord CANNOT Do

Evict simply because he bought the property (“sale/transfer of ownership” is NOT a ground).
Evict during the effectivity of a fixed-term lease on the ground of personal use.
Use self-help (padlocking, cutting utilities, harassment). This is illegal and punishable under Article 539 of the Civil Code and RA 9653 Section 10.
Refuse renewal arbitrarily in month-to-month tenancies without invoking one of the five grounds above.
Demand eviction on the pretext of “renovation” when the real intent is to re-let at a higher rent (courts pierce this sham easily).

Procedure the New Landlord Must Follow

Send a formal written demand/notice to vacate stating the specific ground (for personal use, at least 3 months advance notice).
Undergo mandatory barangay conciliation (lupon).
If conciliation fails, file an ejectment case before the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court.
Prove the ground strictly (documentary and testimonial evidence).
If the decision becomes final, secure a writ of execution and demolition (if necessary).

The entire process typically takes 8–18 months, depending on the court’s calendar and whether the tenant appeals.

Special Cases and Exceptions

If the lease contract is annotated on the title – the new owner is absolutely bound and cannot invoke Art. 1676 nor personal use until the lease expires.
If the property was sold through a sham or fictitious sale to circumvent tenant rights – the sale is void as to the tenant (Art. 1676, par. 3).
Condominium units – the Condominium Act and the Master Deed may impose additional restrictions.
Tenants who have been in possession for more than 10–15 years – courts are more stringent in requiring proof of genuine need.

Conclusion

Under Philippine law as applied in December 2025, a new landlord who purchases a residential property occupied by existing tenants cannot evict them at will. The lease survives the sale, and eviction is possible only through a judicial action based on one of the five exclusive grounds in RA 9653 Section 9 — the most viable of which is the new owner’s bona fide personal or family use, provided all conditions (3-month notice, one-year no-reletting rule, good faith) are strictly complied with.

Tenants enjoy strong possession rights; new owners who wish to occupy their property must plan accordingly and be prepared to prove their need in court. Any attempt at shortcut or self-help will almost certainly fail and expose the landlord to damages, criminal prosecution, and moral damages awards that often exceed ₱100,000–₱300,000.

This remains the settled law and practice throughout the Philippines.