GR 126363; (June, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126363 June 26, 1998
THE CONGREGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES JEROME and TERESA PROTASIO, respondents.
FACTS
On December 26, 1964, Gervacio Serapio, the grandfather of respondents-spouses Jerome and Teresa Protasio, sold two lots (Lot Nos. 5-A and 5-C) to petitioner Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary. The adjacent lot, Lot No. 5-B, was not purchased. In 1978, Gervacio died and his estate was settled extra-judicially. In October 1989, respondents-spouses purchased Lot No. 5-B from Gervacio’s heirs, and TCT No. 148595 was issued in their name. In November 1989, upon survey, they discovered that 664 square meters of their 858-square-meter property was fenced and occupied by the petitioner, with a boys’ quarters building and a portion of a gymnasium constructed on it without their knowledge and consent. Despite demands, petitioner refused to restore possession, demolish improvements, or pay damages and back rentals. Respondents-spouses filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages. Petitioner admitted occupying part of the lot but claimed it was supposed to be a road lot for access to its other lots and that Gervacio Serapio had ceded its perpetual use to them. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of respondents-spouses, ordering petitioner to vacate, demolish improvements at its own expense, and pay moral damages, back rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE
1. Whether Gervacio Serapio ceded the perpetual use of Lot No. 5-B to the petitioner.
2. Whether the claim of respondents-spouses is barred by laches.
3. Whether the award of actual damages (back rentals) was proper without proof.
4. Whether the award of moral damages was proper absent a prayer and proof, and considering respondents-spouses were purchasers in bad faith.
RULING
1. NO. The Supreme Court found no error in the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The “Agreement of Purchase and Sale” dated July 8, 1959, between Gervacio Serapio and the petitioner, which included a sketch (Annex “A”) showing proposed roads, did not contain any express or implied agreement ceding the perpetual use of Lot No. 5-B to the petitioner. The sketch merely identified the location of the lots sold. Under Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the document is considered as containing all the terms, and no extrinsic evidence of other terms is admissible. The claim of perpetual use, being unsupported by concrete evidence and based on mere speculation, was correctly brushed aside. Furthermore, even if a right of way existed, it would not entitle the petitioner to occupy part of the lot and construct permanent improvements thereon.
2. NO. The Court found the petitioner’s claim of laches unmeritorious. The petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that respondents-spouses’ predecessor-in-interest, Gervacio Serapio, knew of the encroachment for a long time and did nothing. The evidence showed that respondents-spouses discovered the encroachment only in November 1989 after purchasing the lot and having it surveyed, and they filed the complaint in September 1991. Their action was filed within the prescriptive period for recovery of possession.
3. NO. The award of actual damages in the form of back rentals was deleted. The Court held that actual damages must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty, and courts cannot rely on speculation or conjecture. The respondents-spouses failed to present proof to substantiate their claim for back rentals. The trial court’s basis for the award was deemed speculative.
4. NO. The award of moral damages was deleted. The Court ruled that moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a prayer for them in the complaint. Furthermore, moral damages must be proven, and the respondents-spouses failed to present evidence of suffering, mental anguish, or besmirched reputation. The Court also deleted the award of attorney’s fees for lack of factual, legal, and equitable justification, as the trial court and Court of Appeals did not state the reason for the award, violating the proscription against penalizing the right to litigate.
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the decision of the Court of Appeals by DELETING the awards of back rentals, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. In all other respects, the decision was AFFIRMED.