Validity of Padlocking of Leased Premises

In the case of D.M. Ragasa Enterprises v. BDO 1, the lease contract which is the subject matter of
the case included a stipulation, to wit:

“p) Breach or non-compliance of any of the provisions of this Contract, especially

non-payment of two consecutive monthly rentals on time, shall mean the
termination of this Contract, and within five (5) days from the date of breach,
non-compliance, or default, the TENANT shall vacate the premises quietly and
peacefully without need of the required judicial proceedings. If he does not vacate
the premises, the TENANT has agreed that the LESSOR has no liability
whatsoever due to the padlocking of the same;”

The court ruled that “The foregoing stipulations are clear and show no contravention of
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. As such, they are valid, and the
parties' rights shall be adjudicated according to them, being the primary law between
them. When the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of
the contracting parties, the rule is settled that the literal meaning of its stipulations
should control.”

Further, in the case of Alejandro, et. al. v. Bernas, et. al. 2, petitioners were the lessees and sub-
lessees of a condominium unit. The said unit was padlocked by the lessor and petitioners
claimed that the padlocking was illegal, felonious and unlawful which prevented them from
entering the premises. They insist that the mere padlocking of the unit prevented them from
using it for the purpose for which it was intended and this, according to them, is grave coercion
on the part of the lessors. The lessors, on the other hand, insist that there is no legal impediment
to cause the padlocking and repossession of the Unit as a valid exercise of proprietary right
under the contract of lease.

The court ruled in favor of the lessors and stated that for grave coercion to lie, the following
elements must be present: 1.) that a person is prevented by another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2.) that
the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3.) that the
person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that
the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right. 3 However,
the lessors in this case may be charged with unjust vexation but may be only be determine in a
full-blown trial. It may be also likened to the case of Barbasa v. Tuquero wherein the lessor
disconnected the electricity in the stalls occupied by the lessees because of the latter’s failure to
pay the back rentals. If there was no violence through material force or such a display of it as
would produce intimidation and control over the will of the offended party, then there is no
grave coercion.

With the foregoing, a stipulation in a Contract of Lease which provides the lessor the
right to padlock the leased premises is a valid stipulation.

1
G.R. No. 190512, June 20, 2018
2
G.R. No.179245, September 7, 2011
3
Navarra v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.176291, December 4, 2009