DIGEST/ GESELLE SAGUIN/ DANILO DUMO AND SUPREMA DUMO VS. ERLINDA ESPINAS

 DANILO DUMO AND SUPREMA DUMO VS. ERLINDA ESPINAS

FACTS: 

    Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeal. 

    There is  a complaint for forcible entry with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction filed by petitioners against the respondent. That plaintiffs are the owners-possessors of a parcel of sandy land with all the improvements Espinas filed a civil complaint before this same court in a civil case for Quieting of Title and/or Ownership and Possession against spouses Sandy and Presnida Saldana, subject matter of the case being the same real property . Although they were able to obtain a favorable decision but it was not enforce by the Sheriff. 

    All defendants acting for the interest of Severa Espinas, apparently 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, took it upon themselves, employing force, intimidation, and threat. They also tore down all the improvements standing. Petitioners prayed for the payment of actual damages,  lost earnings ,moral damagesand attorney's fees.

     On November 12, 1996, the MTC issued a temporary restraining order directing the defendants to cease and desist from destroying or demolishing the improvements found on the subject land and from putting up structures thereon.In its Order of January 15, 1997, the MTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction. That Sps. Marcelino and Severa Espinas purchased the questioned parcel of land, it has been declared for taxation purposes under their name and the real estate taxes have religiously paid and the  defendants the lawful owners of said parcel of land. The 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.

 RULING: 

    The Court ruled that the decision of CA Is correct. 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.

    Although the MTC's order for the reimbursement to petitioners of their alleged lost earnings over the subject premises, which is a 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. Thus, we find no error in the ruling of the RTC that the award for lost earnings has no evidentiary or factual basis; and in the decision of the CA affirming the same.