G.R. No. L-321 - Vda. de Tuazon vs. De Javellana

Plaintiff: Elisa R. Vda. de Tuazon, whose residential house in Sampaloc, Manila was destroyed by fire during the shelling by the Japanese amid the battles for the liberation of Manila.
Defendants: Cristeta Jimenea de Javellana, et al., tenants occupying the second floor of a building at Quezon Blvd. No. 546, under a monthly lease arrangement at P88 per month.

Due to the destruction of her home, the plaintiff temporarily resided at the house of Jose Cruz on Metrica Street from February 12 to April 16, 1945.
The plaintiff subsequently needed to reclaim the house at Quezon Blvd., which she had arranged for her residence after being displaced.
The defendants, as tenants occupying the second floor, were requested to vacate the premises to free up the space needed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff made both verbal and written requests (supported by Exhibits A and A-1) for the defendants to vacate the upper floor of the building.
Upon the defendants’ refusal to vacate, the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings by filing a complaint for ejectment in the Municipal Court of Manila on July 24, 1945.

The Municipal Court of Manila rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on August 11, 1945, granting the relief as prayed in the complaint.
The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on August 25, 1945. Instead of a brief denial, the municipal court issued another decision as prayed for on September 5, 1945.
On November 28, 1945, the Court of First Instance of Manila, through Judge Mariano de la Rosa, on appeal, issued a decision ordering:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property despite the defendants being tenants on a monthly lease.
Whether the contractual arrangement, lacking a fixed duration and operating on a month-to-month basis, provides the plaintiff the right to terminate the lease and demand vacation of the premises.

Whether the plaintiff’s action of requesting the defendants' vacation before filing the complaint conforms with the provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 1581 and 1566).
Whether sufficient evidence exists to establish that the plaintiff’s need for the premises was genuine and justified.

Whether the refusal by the defendants to vacate, based on their contention that the plaintiff had not proven a legitimate need for the premises, holds legal merit.
The impact of any testimonies, particularly that of Dr. Juan Tuazon, on establishing the necessity of the premises for the plaintiff.