When the owner and lessor of a property proceeds with its alienation (sale or transfer), the person who acquires it is automatically and completely subrogated into the legal relationship of the lease. However, the lessee may be unaware of the alienation and continue to pay rent to the previous owner with whom they concluded the lease, even though the former is no longer the lessor and creditor of the rent payment claim. If the payment is not deemed valid, the obligation to pay rent has not been extinguished, and the burden of reclaiming the paid amounts, as well as the risk of insolvency of the original lessor, falls upon the lessee, who paid a non-entitled party. Otherwise, the corresponding burden and risk fall upon the new acquirer. Similar issues arise in the case of a real property legacy (bequest) involving a leased property, or in the case of multiple heirs where one is installed in the leased property as a specific part. Who bears the risk arising from the payment of rent to a non-entitled party, being unaware of the actual succession or legacy transfer?
The following is the full study as published in the legal journal Chronicles of Private Law