SECOND DIVISION
CGR CORPORATION herein G.R. No. 170916
represented by its President
ALBERTO RAMOS, III, Present:
HERMAN M. BENEDICTO
and ALBERTO R. QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
BENEDICTO,
CARPIO,
Petitioners, CARPIO MORALES,
- versus - TINGA, and
ERNESTO L. TREYES, JR., VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Respondent. Promulgated:
April 27, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Assailed via petition for review are issuances of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 43, Bacolod City, in Civil Case No. 04-12284, to wit: Order1[1]
dated August 26, 2005 which dismissed petitioners complaint for damages on the
ground of prematurity, and Order2[2] dated January 2, 2006 which denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration.
In issue is one of law whether a complainant in a forcible entry case can file
an independent action for damages arising after the act of dispossession had
occurred.
1 [1] Records, pp. 308-315.
2 [2] Id. at 450.
CGR Corporation, Herman M. Benedicto and Alberto R. Benedicto
(petitioners) claimed to have occupied 37.3033 hectares of public land in Barangay
Bulanon, Sagay City, Negros Occidental even before the notarized separate
Fishpond Lease Agreement Nos. 5674,3[3] 56944[4] and 56955[5] in their
respective favor were approved in October 2000 by the Secretary of Agriculture
for a period of twenty-five (25) years or until December 31, 2024.
On November 18, 2000, Ernesto L. Treyes, Jr. (respondent) allegedly
forcibly and unlawfully entered the leased properties and once inside barricaded
the entrance to the fishponds, set up a barbed wire fence along the road going to
petitioners fishponds, and harvested several tons of milkfish, fry and fingerlings
owned by petitioners.
On November 22, 2000, petitioners promptly filed with the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) in Sagay City separate complaints for Forcible Entry With
Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction And Damages,
docketed as Civil Case Nos. 1331,6[6] 13327[7] and 1333,8[8] against Ernesto M.
Treyes, Sr. and respondent.
In a separate move, petitioners filed in March 2004 with the Bacolod RTC a
complaint for damages against respondent, docketed as Civil Case No, 04-12284,
alleging, inter alia,
xxxx
V
That prior to the issuance of the fishpond lease agreement in favor of the
plaintiffs, they had already been in open and continuous possession of the same
parcel of land;
3 [3] Id. at 13.
4 [4] Id. at 15.
5 [5] Id. at 17.
6 [6] Id. at. 58-67.
7 [7] Id. at 49-57.
8 [8] Id. at 68-76.
VI
As lessee and in possession of the above[-]described fishpond, plaintiffs
have continuously occupied, cultivated and developed the said fishpond and since
then, had been regularly harvesting milkfish, shrimps, mud crabs and other
produce of the fishponds;
VII
That the yearly income of the fishpond of the plaintiff corporation is at
least P300,000.00 more or less, while the yearly income of the fishpond of
plaintiff Herman Benedicto, Sr. is at least P100,000.00 more or less, and the
yearly income of the fishpond of plaintiff Alberto Benedicto is at least
P100,000.00 more or less;
VIII
That sometime last November 18, 2000 or thereabout, defendant Ernesto
L. Treyes, Jr. and his armed men and with the help of the blue guards from the
Negros Veterans Security Agency forcibly and unlawfully entered the fishponds
of the plaintiffs and once inside barricaded the entrance of the fishpond and set up
barb wire fence along the road going to plaintiffs fishpond and harvested the
milkfish and carted away several tons of milkfish owned by the plaintiffs;
IX
That on succeeding days, defendants men continued their forage on the
fishponds of the plaintiffs by carting and taking away the remaining full grown
milkfish, fry and fingerlings and other marine products in the fishponds. NOT
ONLY THAT, even the chapel built by plaintiff CGR Corporation was ransacked
and destroyed and the materials taken away by defendants men. Religious icons
were also stolen and as an extreme act of sacrilege, even decapitated the heads of
some of these icons;
xxxx
XIII
That the unlawful, forcible and illegal intrusion/destruction of defendant
Ernesto Treyes, Jr. and his men on the fishpond leased and possessed by the
plaintiffs is without any authority of law and in violation of Article 539 of the
New Civil Code which states:
Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his
possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be
protected in or restored to said possession by the means established
by the laws and rules of the Court.9[9] (Underscoring supplied)
and praying for the following reliefs:
1) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff CGR Corporation the sum of at
least P900,000.00 and to plaintiffs Herman and Alberto Benedicto, the sum of
at least P300,000.00 each by way of actual damages and such other amounts as
proved during the trial;
2) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 each as
moral damages;
3) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 each as
exemplary damages;
4) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P200,000.00 as
attorneys fees, and to reimburse plaintiffs with all such sums paid to their
counsel by way of appearance fees.10[10] (Underscoring supplied)
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss11[11] petitioners complaint for
damages on three grounds litis pendentia, res judicata and forum shopping.
By the assailed Order12[12] of August 26, 2005, Branch 43 of the Bacolod
RTC dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground of prematurity, it holding that
a complaint for damages may only be maintained after a final determination on the
forcible entry cases has been made.
9 [9] Rollo, pp. 29-32.
10 [10] Records, p. 9.
11 [11] Id. at 28-48.
12 [12] Id. at 308-315.
Hence, the present petition for review.
The only issue is whether, during the pendency of their separate complaints
for forcible entry, petitioners can independently institute and maintain an action for
damages which they claim arose from incidents occurring after the dispossession
by respondent of the premises.
Petitioners meet the issue in the affirmative. Respondents assert otherwise.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Section 17, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 17. Judgment. If after trial the court finds that the allegations of the
complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the
restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises,
attorneys fees and costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true, it shall
render judgment for the defendant to recover his costs. If a counterclaim is
established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from
either party and award costs as justice requires. (Emphasis supplied)
The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases thus refer to
rents or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises or
fair rental value of the property and attorneys fees and costs.13[13]
The 2006 case of Dumo v. Espinas14[14] reiterates the long-established rule
that the only form of damages that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry
13 [13] Herrera v. Bollos, G.R. No. 138258, January 18, 2002, 374 SCRA 107.
14 [14] G.R. No. 141962, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 53.
is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation
of the property:
Lastly, we agree with the CA and the RTC that 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. Considering that the only issue raised in ejectment
is that of rightful possession, 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. x x x15[15] (Emphasis, underscoring
and italics supplied; citations omitted)
Other damages must thus be claimed in an ordinary action.16[16]
In asserting the negative of the issue, respondent cites the 1999 case of
Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.17[17] In this case,
Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. (Progressive), as lessor, repossessed
the leased premises from the lessee allegedly pursuant to their contract of lease
whereby it was authorized to do so if the lessee failed to pay monthly rentals. The
lessee filed a case for forcible entry with damages against Progressive before the
15 [15] Id. at 70.
16 [16] Felisilda v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-60372, October 29, 1985, 139 SCRA 431.
17 [17] G.R. No. 123555, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 637.
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. During the pendency of the
case, the lessee filed an action for damages before the RTC, drawing Progressive to
file a motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia. The RTC denied the motion.
On appeal by Progressive, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC order
denying the motion to dismiss.
Progressive brought the case to this Court. Citing Section 1, Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court, this Court reversed the lower courts ruling, it holding that all cases
for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be filed before the Municipal Trial
Court which shall include not only the plea for restoration of possession but also
all claims for damages and costs therefrom. In other words, this Court held that no
claim for damages arising out of forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be filed
separately and independently of the claim for restoration of possession.18[18]
(Underscoring supplied)
In thus ruling, this Court in Progressive made a comparative study of the
therein two complaints, thus:
A comparative study of the two (2) complaints filed by private respondent
against petitioner before the two (2) trial courts shows that not only are the
elements of res adjudicata present, at least insofar as the claim for actual and
18 [18] Id. at 648.
compensatory damages is concerned, but also that the claim for damagesmoral
and exemplary in addition to actual and compensatoryconstitutes splitting a
single cause of action. Since this runs counter to the rule against multiplicity of
suits, the dismissal of the second action becomes imperative.
The complaint for forcible entry contains the following pertinent
allegations
2.01 On 02 January 1989, plaintiff entered into a contract
of lease with defendant PDC over a property designated as Ground
Floor, Seafood Market (hereinafter Subject Premises) situated at
the corner of EDSA corner MacArthur Street, Araneta Center,
Cubao, Quezon City, for a period of ten (10) years from 02 January
1989 to 30 April 1998.
2.02 Immediately after having acquired actual physical
possession of the Subject Premises, plaintiff established and now
operates thereon the now famous Seafood Market Restaurant.
Since then, plaintiff had been in actual, continuous, and peaceful
physical possession of the Subject Premises until 31 October 1992.
xxxx
3.02 Plaintiff, being the lessee of the Subject Premises, is
entitled to the peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the Subject
Premises to the exclusion of all others, including defendants
herein.
3.03 Defendants resort to strong arms tactics to forcibly
wrest possession of the Subject Premises from plaintiff and
maintain possession thereof through the use of force, threat,
strategy and intimidation by the use of superior number of men and
arms amounts to the taking of the law into their own hands.
3.04 Thus, defendants act of unlawfully evicting out
plaintiff from the Subject Premises it is leasing from defendant
PDC and depriving it of possession thereof through the use of
force, threat, strategy and intimidation should be condemned and
declared illegal for being contrary to public order and policy.
3.05 Consequently, defendants should be enjoined from
continuing with their illegal acts and be ordered to vacate the
Subject Premises and restore possession thereof, together with its
contents to plaintiff.
xxxx
4.07 Considering that defendants act of forcibly grabbing
possession of the Subject Premises from plaintiff is illegal and null
and void, defendant should be adjudged liable to plaintiff for all
the aforedescribed damages which plaintiff incurred as a result
thereof.
The amended complaint for damages filed by private respondent alleges
basically the same factual circumstances and issues as bases for the relief prayed
for, to wit:
4. On May 28, 1991, plaintiff and defendant PDC entered
into a Contract of Lease for a period of ten years or from January
2, 1989 up to April 30, 1998 over a property designated as Ground
Floor, Seafood Market (hereinafter referred to as Subject Premises)
situated at the corner of EDSA corner McArthur Street, Araneta
Center, Cubao, Quezon City. A copy of the lease contract is
attached hereto as Annex A.
5. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff took over actual
physical possession of Subject Premises, and established thereon
the now famous Seafood Market Restaurant.
xxxx
7. On October 31, 1992 at around 8:30 p.m., defendant
PDC, without the benefit of any writ of possession or any lawful
court order and with the aid of approximately forty (40) armed
security guards and policemen under the supervision of defendant
Tejam, forcibly entered the subject premises through force,
intimidation, threats and stealth and relying on brute force and in a
thunderboltish manner and against plaintiffs will, unceremoniously
drew away all of plaintiffs men out of the subject premises, thereby
depriving herein plaintiff of its actual, physical and natural
possession of the subject premises. The illegal high-handed
manner of gestapo like take-over by defendants of subject premises
is more particularly described as follows: x x x x
8. To date, defendants continue to illegally possess and
hold the Subject Premises, including all the multi-million
improvements, fixtures and equipment therein owned by plaintiff,
all to the damage and prejudice of plaintiff. The actuations of
defendants constitute an unlawful appropriation, seizure and taking
of property against the will and consent of plaintiff. Worse,
defendants are threatening to sell at public auction and without the
consent, of plaintiff and without lawful authority, the multi-million
fixtures and equipment of plaintiff and at prices way below the
market value thereof. Plaintiff hereby attaches as Annex B the
letter from defendants dated August 6, 1993 addressed to plaintiff,
informing the latter that the former intends to sell at an auction on
August 19, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. properties of the plaintiff presently in
defendants possession.
xxxx
12. Defendants unlawful takeover of the premises
constitutes a violation of its obligation under Art. 1654 of the New
Civil Code requiring the lessor to maintain the lessee in peaceful
and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
contract. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery
of damages under Art. 1659 of the New Civil Code x x x x19[19]
(Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
Analyzing the two complaints, this Court, still in Progressive, observed:
Restated in its bare essentials, the forcible entry case has one cause of action, namely,
the alleged unlawful entry by petitioner into the leased premises out of which three (3) reliefs
(denominated by private respondent as its causes of action) arose: (a) the restoration by the lessor
(petitioner herein) of the possession of the leased premises to the lessee, (b) the claim for actual
damages due to the losses suffered by private respondent such as the deterioration of perishable
foodstuffs stored inside the premises and the deprivation of the use of the premises causing loss
of expected profits; and, (c) the claim for attorneys fees and costs of suit.
On the other hand, the complaint for damages prays for a monetary award
consisting of (a) moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of
another P500,000.00; (b) actual damages of P20,000.00 and compensatory
damages of P1,000,000.00 representing unrealized profits; and, (c) P200,000.00
for attorneys fees and costs, all based on the alleged forcible takeover of the
leased premises by petitioner. Since actual and compensatory damages were
already prayed for in the forcible entry case before the MeTC, it is obvious that
this cannot be relitigated in the damage suit before the RTC by reason of res
adjudicata.
19 [19] Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra, 649-652.
The other claims for moral and exemplary damages cannot also succeed
considering that these sprung from the main incident being heard before the
MeTC. x x x20[20] (Italics in the original; Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears noting, however, that as reflected in the earlier-quoted allegations in
the complaint for damages of herein petitioners, their claim for damages have no
direct relation to their loss of possession of the premises. It had to do with
respondents alleged harvesting and carting away several tons of milkfish and other
marine products in their fishponds, ransacking and destroying of a chapel built by
petitioner CGR Corporation, and stealing religious icons and even decapitating the
heads of some of them, after the act of dispossession had occurred.
Surely, one of the elements of litis pendentia - that the identity between the
pending actions, with respect to the parties, rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, is
such that any judgment rendered on one action will, regardless of which is
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration - is not present,
hence, it may not be invoked to dismiss petitioners complaint for damages.21[21]
Res judicata may not apply because the court in a forcible entry case has no
jurisdiction over claims for damages other than the use and occupation of the
premises and attorneys fees.22[22]
20 [20] Id. at 652.
21 [21] Herrera, REMEDIAL LAW I (2000 ed.), p. 313.
22 [22] Ibid.
Neither may forum-shopping justify a dismissal of the complaint for
damages, the elements of litis pendentia not being present, or where a final
judgment in the forcible entry case will not amount to res judicata in the former.23
[23]
Petitioners filing of an independent action for damages other than those
sustained as a result of their dispossession or those caused by the loss of their use
and occupation of their properties could not thus be considered as splitting of a
cause of action.
WHEREFORE, the Orders dated August 26, 2005 and January 2, 2006
issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Bacolod City, in Civil Case No. 04-
12284 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Bacolod City, is directed to
REINSTATE Civil Case No. 04-12284 to its docket and to conduct proceedings
thereon with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
23 [23] Vide Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 13
