PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. ROSARIO GANAC CHU respondent.
G.R. No. 14521. September 21, 2005
Facts:
Sometime in June 1993, Public Estates Authority (PEA) and National Housing Authority (NHA) entered Chu’s property and bulldozed the land, destroying her black pepper plantation, causing damage to her operations, and depriving her means of livelihood. She then filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court Cavite alleging that she is the owner of the property. PEA on its defense alleged that it is the owner of the property bulldozed. PEA prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as Chu according to PEA, failed to prove ownership of the land with reference to the sale made by Chu of 65,410 sq. m. out of the 70,410 sq. m. of the property in question to Renato Ignacio sometime in 1990. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite on its partial decision however, ruled that PEA and NHA are both liable to pay plaintiff 2 million pesos by way of actual and compensatory damages, and the additional amount of 100,000 pesos as attorney’s fees and cost of suit. PEA and NHA filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the RTC. They later filed an appeal to the CA which assailed the decision of the RTC hence, petitioner filed for a review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not CA erred in affirming grant of actual damages in the amount of 2 million pesos and 100,000 as attorney’s fees plus costs of suit.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found both the trial court and the CA’s decision of granting 2 million pesos and 100,000 erroneous as the evidence in record does not support the award of such amount. No receipt was ever proffered by respondent proving her claims for compensation on the costs she incurred from the purchase of the pepper seeds, to the maintenance of the farm, and her supposed unrealized income. She however can demand for damages that can be anchored in the “abuse of rights” principle under Article 19 of the Civil Code providing that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Respondent’s ownership of the property on which the pepper trees stand is immaterial. The petitioners in the case should have acted with caution and prudence before trespassing on another’s property for even squatters are entitled to due process and cannot just be evicted by the owner without resorting to the court of law. Thus, the Supreme Court modified payment for damages to P250,000 and reduced attorney and litigation fee to 50,000 and 30,000, which was originally prayed for by Chu.
