A Philippine legal article on what landlords may (and may not) charge at move-out

1) Why “wear and tear” disputes happen

In Philippine rentals, the most common end-of-lease conflict is the security deposit: the landlord wants to deduct for repainting, cleaning, or “repairs,” while the tenant argues these are just normal use. The legal answer depends on three things:

What the lease contract actually says (and whether the clause is enforceable),
Civil Code rules on lease (lessor vs lessee obligations), and
Evidence of condition at move-in and move-out (photos, inventories, inspections).

A key principle: the landlord can generally recover actual, provable damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, but cannot shift the normal cost of ownership to the tenant simply by labeling it “charges.”

2) Core Philippine legal framework (plain-language map)

A. Civil Code on Lease (general rule: owner maintains; tenant uses with care)

Philippine lease law is primarily governed by the Civil Code provisions on lease (Title on Lease). Two central ideas control wear-and-tear charges:

Lessor/landlord obligations (ownership burdens): deliver the unit in a condition fit for its intended use; maintain it; make necessary repairs to keep it usable; ensure peaceful enjoyment.
Lessee/tenant obligations (use burdens): pay rent; use the unit as a diligent person would; avoid misuse or negligence; return the unit upon termination.

Wear and tear is the legal “middle zone.” It is deterioration that happens even with proper use. That kind of deterioration is usually treated as a normal incident of leasing and therefore not a tenant charge—unless the contract validly makes the tenant responsible for specific minor upkeep (and the charge still reflects actual and reasonable costs).

B. Freedom to contract—limits still apply

Parties may stipulate terms (Civil Code principle of autonomy), but clauses must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy and must not operate as a tool for unjust enrichment. A clause that effectively makes the tenant pay for ordinary depreciation or a landlord’s routine refurbishment can be challenged as unreasonable, especially if it functions like an automatic forfeiture unrelated to actual damage.

C. Security deposit: not free money

A security deposit is typically meant to secure:

unpaid rent,
unpaid utilities/association dues (if contractually tenant’s responsibility), and
repair of tenant-caused damage beyond normal wear and tear.

The deposit is not supposed to become a default “renovation fund” unless the lease clearly and validly makes particular refurbishments the tenant’s obligation and the amounts are tied to real costs.

3) What “wear and tear” means in practice

Philippine statutes do not give a single universal definition of “wear and tear,” so disputes are resolved by facts, reasonableness, and the contract.

A. Working definition

Ordinary wear and tear is the expected deterioration from normal, careful, intended use over time—without negligence, abuse, or unauthorized alteration.

B. Factors that affect what is “ordinary”

Length of stay (2 months vs 2 years changes expectations)
Original condition at turnover (newly painted vs already faded)
Quality/age of materials (low-grade paint chips faster)
Number of occupants (reasonable usage still matters)
Proper maintenance (e.g., prompt reporting of leaks)

C. Examples often treated as normal wear and tear

These typically fall under ordinary wear unless unusually severe or caused by neglect:

minor scuffs on walls and doors
small nail holes from hanging frames (within reason)
paint fading from sunlight
light dirt in grout or caulking discoloration over time
worn carpet/laminate sheen from foot traffic
minor loosening of handles/hinges due to repeated normal use
appliance aging consistent with normal use (reduced efficiency over years)

D. Examples more likely treated as chargeable tenant damage

These are commonly seen as beyond wear and tear (subject to proof and context):

large holes, broken tiles, cracked windows from impact
deep stains, burns, gouges (e.g., cigarettes, iron, hot pans on counters)
missing fixtures, removed smoke detectors, lost keys beyond allowed copies
pet damage (scratching, urine odor, chewed moldings)
heavy mold due to failure to ventilate/clean after being warned
water damage caused by tenant negligence (overflowing tubs, ignoring known leaks)
unauthorized repainting or unapproved renovations requiring restoration
pest infestation traceable to poor housekeeping or improper waste handling

4) Who pays for what: the lessor–lessee split

A useful way to evaluate charges is to classify them into (1) necessary repairs, (2) minor upkeep, and (3) restoration for tenant-caused damage.

A. Necessary repairs to keep the unit usable (usually landlord)

Repairs needed so the unit remains fit for its intended use—especially those arising from:

age, normal depreciation, and ordinary use; or
structural/plumbing/electrical issues not caused by tenant fault

These are typically landlord responsibilities.

B. Minor upkeep and consumables (sometimes tenant, depending on contract)

Many leases validly place certain small items on the tenant, such as:

light bulbs, basic cleaning, minor adjustments
routine drain declogging caused by tenant use (hair/grease)
replacement of inexpensive consumables

The key is reasonableness and causation. A landlord cannot treat major breakdowns as “minor upkeep” just to charge the tenant.

C. Restoration of tenant-caused damage (tenant)

If a tenant’s negligence, misuse, or unauthorized alteration caused damage, the tenant can be liable for actual damages, meaning the reasonable cost to restore the unit to the condition required by the lease (often “substantially similar” to move-in condition, not “brand new”).

5) The most disputed “wear and tear” charges (and how they’re evaluated)

A. Repainting charges

Common landlord claim: “Repaint is always deducted.” Tenant-rights approach:

If paint is merely faded, lightly scuffed, or has routine marks from ordinary living, that is usually wear and tear.
If there are crayon markings, heavy smoke staining, grease stains, mold from neglect, or unauthorized paint colors, repainting (or part of it) can be chargeable.

Key fairness principle: even if repainting is justified, the tenant should not be charged to make the unit better than it was at turnover (e.g., charging full repaint when paint was already old). A reasonable assessment ties charges to incremental damage, not routine turnover refresh.

B. Professional cleaning fees

Ordinary cleaning expected after move-out is often part of the landlord’s turnover cost.
“Professional cleaning” becomes more chargeable when there is excessive filth, strong odors, pest issues, or conditions beyond normal occupancy.

A tenant’s strongest protection is evidence of move-out cleanliness (photos/video) and a signed turnover checklist.

C. Flooring (tiles, laminate, wood)

Normal scratches and wear patterns can be ordinary.
Deep gouges, broken tiles from impacts, water damage from neglect, or pet damage is more likely chargeable.

Damage valuation matters: charging full replacement of an entire floor for localized damage may be challenged as unreasonable unless replacement is truly necessary and proportionate.

D. Appliances and fixtures

Landlords often try to charge for “not working” appliances. The legal and practical question is cause:

If failure is due to age, ordinary use, or latent defects, it is not tenant damage.
If failure is due to misuse (e.g., overloading washing machine, running AC with clogged filters after repeated reminders, physical breakage), it may be chargeable.

A fair charge should consider depreciation (an old appliance doesn’t become “new replacement at tenant’s cost” absent proof the tenant’s act destroyed it).

E. Plumbing and drains

Clogs due to normal use can be ambiguous; many leases put routine declogging on the tenant, but major plumbing defects remain landlord.
If the tenant flushed improper materials, charges are more likely valid.

F. Curtains, screens, keys, remote controls

These are often clearly itemized in inventories. Missing items are typically chargeable at reasonable replacement cost—again, ideally supported by receipts or market rates.

6) Security deposit deductions: what tenants can demand

Tenant rights are strongest when demanding process and proof.

A. Right to an itemized accounting

A tenant can reasonably require:

a list of deductions,
the basis for each (damage description), and
supporting documents (receipts, invoices, quotations, or at least objective proof).

B. Deductions must be tied to actual obligations

A deduction is more defensible when it corresponds to:

unpaid rent/utilities that the lease clearly places on the tenant; or
repair costs for tenant-caused damage beyond wear and tear.

C. “Automatic forfeiture” clauses are vulnerable

Some contracts say the deposit is automatically forfeited for any breach or for repainting/cleaning regardless of condition. These clauses can be attacked as:

punitive rather than compensatory,
unrelated to actual loss, or
enabling unjust enrichment.

Even where a contract provides liquidated damages, Philippine civil law generally expects damages to be reasonable and not a disguised penalty.

D. Timing of return

Many leases set a period (e.g., 30–60 days) to return the deposit after final utility bills and inspection. If the lease is silent, the deposit should be returned within a reasonable time after accounting, not indefinitely.

7) Evidence: the single biggest determinant of outcomes

Wear-and-tear cases are won or lost on documentation.

A. Best evidence at move-in

signed condition checklist
dated photos/videos of walls, floors, appliances, CR, kitchen
inventory list of included items (remotes, keys, fixtures)

B. Best evidence at move-out

joint inspection with signed turnover notes
photos/videos after cleaning and after personal items removed
proof of professional cleaning (if done)
meter readings and proof of paid utilities (if applicable)

C. Burden of proof (practical reality)

In civil disputes over deductions, a landlord who withholds the deposit typically needs to justify why they are entitled to keep it. Tenants improve their position by showing:

they returned the unit in good condition (minus ordinary wear), and
claimed damages are exaggerated, pre-existing, or normal depreciation.

8) Enforceable vs questionable lease clauses (wear-and-tear context)

A. Common enforceable clauses (when clear and reasonable)

tenant pays minor consumables and routine cleaning
tenant restores unauthorized alterations
tenant pays for lost keys/remotes
tenant liable for damage due to negligence, misuse, or guests/pets
reasonable move-out cleaning standard (e.g., “broom clean”)

B. Clauses that often trigger disputes (and may be attacked)

mandatory “repaint fee” regardless of condition or length of stay
blanket “professional cleaning fee” even if unit is clean
automatic forfeiture of entire deposit for minor issues
charging brand-new replacements for old items without depreciation
deductions without inspection, itemization, or proof

A clause can exist in a contract yet still be argued against if it produces an outcome that is plainly inequitable or functions as a penalty divorced from actual loss.

9) Practical remedies when the landlord overcharges

Tenant remedies depend on the amount and the forum.

A. Negotiation with a paper trail

Send a written request for itemized deductions and proof.
Respond item-by-item disputing wear-and-tear charges with attached photos.

B. Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Many landlord–tenant money disputes between individuals within the same city/municipality are typically brought first to the barangay for conciliation, subject to jurisdictional rules and exceptions.

C. Small Claims (for money recovery)

If the issue is primarily the return of deposit or an overcharge that is a fixed, computable amount, tenants often use small claims in appropriate courts (no lawyers generally required by the simplified procedure, with limited exceptions). The claim is usually framed as:

sum of money (return of deposit), plus
possibly damages/interest if justified.

D. Regular civil action (when issues are complex)

If the dispute involves multiple issues (e.g., damages, counterclaims, contract rescission, complicated factual questions), a regular civil case may be used.

E. Possible damages beyond the deposit (bad faith scenarios)

Where a landlord withholds a deposit in bad faith or uses harassment tactics, Philippine civil law can allow claims (fact-dependent) for:

actual damages (documented losses),
moral damages (in exceptional circumstances),
exemplary damages (where warranted), and
attorney’s fees (when allowed by law/contract or justified by the court).

10) A tenant’s “wear and tear” checklist (rights-forward version)

Before signing

Require a move-in inspection and inventory as an annex.
Clarify what “wear and tear” means in the contract (examples help).
Avoid vague clauses like “repaint fee automatically deducted.”

During the lease

Report leaks, electrical issues, and defects in writing promptly.
Keep receipts for minor tenant-responsibility replacements if the lease requires them.
Don’t make alterations without written permission.

At move-out

Clean thoroughly; document everything.
Request a joint final inspection with written findings.
Demand an itemized statement for any deductions and supporting proof.

11) Bottom line principles

Ordinary wear and tear is generally not chargeable to the tenant because it is a normal incident of use and ownership depreciation.
Tenant liability begins where negligence, misuse, or unauthorized alteration begins, and the landlord must show a reasonable basis for the charge.
Deposit deductions should be specific, itemized, and supported, not automatic or arbitrary.
Charges should reflect restoration to the proper baseline, not an upgrade that makes the unit “better than before.”
Documentation at move-in and move-out is the most powerful protection in Philippine wear-and-tear disputes.