GR 47667; (February, 1943) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47667 ; February 19, 1943
JACINTO CAÑETE, petitioner, vs. JOVITO MAGALLANES, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioner, Jacinto Cañete, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Masbate against the respondent, Jovito Magallanes, to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land, plus damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Cañete, ordering Magallanes to deliver possession and pay damages of P6,612. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Third Division), in a 3-2 decision, reversed the trial court. It declared that neither party had proven ownership over the land. The Court of Appeals found that the land originally belonged to the Government. Cañete admitted this, claiming he had possessed it as owner from 1917 until January 1935, when Magallanes usurped possession, but he declared it for taxes only to see if the Government would cede it to him. The appellate court held such possession was precarious, not adverse or in the concept of owner, and thus conferred no right, even if it lasted over ten years. The case is now before the Supreme Court on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that neither party is entitled to possession of the land, thereby denying Cañete recovery from Magallanes, and whether the award of damages by the trial court was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and ordered Magallanes to deliver possession to Cañete, but disallowed the award of damages.
1. On Possession: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred. This is not a land registration or cadastral case where title against the whole world must be proven. The court is only called to determine the relative rights of the two parties, Cañete and Magallanes. The Government, the original owner, is not a party, and its rights cannot be adjudicated or affected here. The facts found by both lower courts show Cañete has a better right to possession than Magallanes, who was found to have no right or color of title. This superior right is sufficient for Cañete to recover possession from Magallanes.
2. On Damages: The Supreme Court found the trial court’s award of P6,612 in damages untenable as a matter of law. The measure of damages in an action for recovery of possession is the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the land. The sole evidence was Cañete’s testimony that he collected about P174 monthly from tenants before January 1935. This does not prove that the same amount represented the reasonable rental value for the entire period from 1935 to the 1938 decision, especially as the land was in a mining region and rents could vary with time and circumstances. In the absence of evidence that the 1934 rents prevailed until 1938, they cannot be used as the basis for damages for the subsequent years.
DISPOSITIVE:
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is revoked. A new judgment is entered ordering respondent Jovito Magallanes to deliver possession of the land described in the complaint to petitioner Jacinto Cañete, with costs against the respondent.