Tuazon v. Javellana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the liberation of Manila, the plaintiff's residential house was lost by fire due to Japanese shelling. She then resided in the house of Jose Cruz from February 12 to April 16, 1945. The defendants were tenants of the plaintiff on the second floor of a house at Quezon Blvd. No. 546, paying a monthly rent of P88. The plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the premises as she needed it for her residence. The defendants refused. Consequently, the plaintiff had to live in her son's clinic, which was insufficient for her seven household members. Procedural History: The plaintiff verbally and in writing (Exhibits A and A-1) requested the defendants to vacate. Upon their refusal, a complaint for ejectment was filed in the municipal court of Manila on July 24, 1945. The municipal court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on August 11, 1945. A motion for reconsideration was filed, and on September 5, 1945, the municipal court rendered another decision as prayed for in the complaint. On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Mariano L. de la Rosa, on November 28, 1945, ordered the defendants to vacate the premises and pay the rents at P88 a month, plus costs. The Petition: The defendants appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property. Whether the plaintiff sufficiently showed that she needs the premises for her residence.
Ruling
The decision of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property: The Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession. As there was no definite period of duration agreed upon in the contract of lease and the defendants were paying rent on a monthly basis, the plaintiff, under the Civil Code, is entitled to terminate the contract at any given month by requiring the defendants to vacate the premises. This notice was given by the plaintiff before filing the complaint, satisfying the legal requirement for termination. On the issue of whether the plaintiff sufficiently showed that she needs the premises for her residence: The Court found that the defendants' contention that the appellee has not shown her need for the premises is without merit. The testimony of Doctor Tuazon was deemed sufficient to disprove this contention. However, the Court clarified that even if this contention were not disproven, it could not affect the legal issue of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property, which is based on the contractual terms and the Civil Code provisions regarding lease termination.
Main Doctrine
Under the Civil Code, a lessor is entitled to terminate a month-to-month lease agreement and recover possession of the property by giving notice to the lessee to vacate, even without a definite period of duration agreed upon.