Dumo v Espinas

Facts:

Spouses Dumo are the owners-possessors of a parcel of sandy beach resort in Bauang, La Union.  Severa J. Espinas filed a "Quieting of Title and/or Ownership and Possession against spouses Sandy and Presnida Saldana, subject matter of the case being the same resort.

Although a decision has been rendered against the defendants in the case against spouses Saldana, the the same was not enforced.

Disgruntled with the refusal of the sheriff to put them in possession over the questioned real property, and in open defiance with the official action taken by the sheriff, all defendants acting for the interest of Espinas took it upon themselves, employing force, intimidation, and threat, to enter the property.

Despite protests made by Spouses Dumo, who were there then present and visibly outnumbered by defendants and their agents who were armed with sticks, bolos, hammers, and other deadly weapons, successfully drove out plaintiffs, and took over the premises

It was alleged that the defendants were boasting aloud that they were under instructions by the "judge" to do just that – to forcibly enter and take over the premises. While inside the premises, they demolished and totally tore down all the improvements.

Spouses Dumo prayed for the payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages. The MTC rendered judgment holding that petitioners were able to prove their right of possession over the subject property.

Respondents appealed the case to the RTC of Bauang, La Union. The RTC reversed and set aside the Decision of the MTC. It also ruled that as regards damages, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property.

Spouses Dumo filed a petition for review with the CA. The CA held that the MTC correctly found that the petitioners were in possession of the subject land and agreed with the ruling of the RTC that in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property concerned.

Issue:

Whether or not the the CA erred in holding that the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value for use of the property.

Held:

No. The CA is correct. There is no basis for the MTC to award actual, moral and exemplary damages in view of the settled rule that in ejectment cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property.

The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.

Although the MTC’s order for the reimbursement to petitioners of their alleged lost earnings over beach resort could have been considered as compensation for their loss of the use and occupation of the property while it was in the possession of the respondents, records do not show any evidence to sustain the same.