G.R. No. L-28466. March 27, 1971.
ALBERTO T. REYES, SATURNINO LIWANAG and LORENZO HERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORO KALAW, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were month-to-month lessees of respondent Kalaw’s commercial premises on Rizal Avenue, Manila. In May 1962, Kalaw began sending notices to vacate to demolish the old building and construct a new one. The final notice, received on January 15, 1963, gave petitioners 24 hours to leave. Demolition commenced on January 16, 1963. The petitioners filed a forcible entry complaint in the City Court, which ruled in their favor, ordering Kalaw to restore the premises and extending their lease for one year. Kalaw appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI).
The CFI reversed the City Court, dismissing the complaint and ordering petitioners to vacate and pay accrued rentals. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CFI but added an award of P50,000 as temperate damages in favor of Kalaw. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether Kalaw took the law into his own hands by initiating demolition; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling on certain assigned errors; and (3) the propriety of awarding P50,000 in temperate damages to Kalaw.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the first issue, the Court held that the question of whether Kalaw unlawfully took possession was factual. The Court of Appeals’ finding—that Kalaw had a legitimate basis to act, given the expired notices and petitioners’ assurance to vacate by January 15, 1963, to make way for a major construction project—was binding, as it was supported by evidence and not irrational.
Regarding the second issue, the Court found no error. The Court of Appeals had adequately addressed and resolved the petitioners’ material assignments of error within its decision.
On the critical third issue, the Court upheld the award of P50,000 in temperate damages. The legal logic is rooted in the nature of temperate damages under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, which are awarded when some pecuniary loss has been proven but its exact amount cannot be ascertained with certainty. The Court reasoned that Kalaw suffered actual loss due to the petitioners’ wrongful withholding of possession, which delayed his multi-million peso construction project. While the precise financial damage from the delay was difficult to quantify exactly, it was substantial and undeniable. Therefore, the appellate court did not abuse its discretion in moderating the award to P50,000 as reasonable compensation, separate from the awarded accrued rentals, for the losses incurred from the lost use of his property. The award was a fair approximation of the unproven but real losses stemming from the construction delay.