G.R. No. 9612; September 3, 1915
CONSOLACION JAVELONA Y LOPEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FLORENCIO YULO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Vidal Javelona, prior to his death, executed an extrajudicial partition of his property on July 14, 1911, ratified before a notary public in September 1911. The partition was signed by his heirs: his wife Vicenta Lopez, and his daughters Modesta Javelona (wife of defendant Florencio Yulo), Consolacion Javelona (plaintiff, wife of Blass Monteclaro), and Rosario Javelona. The partition allotted to plaintiff Consolacion 35 hectares of land from Hacienda Balabago. In late September 1911, when the plaintiffs attempted to take possession, they obtained only 14 hectares without opposition. The defendant, Florencio Yulo, contested their right to the remaining 21 hectares, took possession of it against the plaintiffs’ will, and retained possession up to the time of trial, harvesting its products.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages, specifically alleging that the defendant’s detention of the 21 hectares caused damages equivalent to 915 cavanes of palay and 60 piculs of sugar. The defendant allowed a judgment by default to be entered. At the hearing on the evidence, the defendant appeared only to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding possession of the 21 hectares and damages amounting to P2,734.50, which included the value of 586½ cavanes of palay and 200 piculs of sugar (less milling costs). The defendant appealed, contesting the award of damages.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the defendant was a possessor in good faith, thereby exempting him from liability for the fruits received.
2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages for 200 piculs of sugar when the complaint alleged damages for only 60 piculs.

RULING:
1. On the possession in good faith: The Court ruled that the defendant was not a possessor in good faith. He participated in and signed the extrajudicial partition, so he knew at the time he took possession that the 21 hectares belonged to the plaintiff Consolacion as part of her inheritance. His attempt to justify possession by claiming a debt owed by Vidal Javelona’s wife was properly rejected by the trial court. Therefore, he was liable for the fruits or products he received from the land.

2. On the award of damages for sugar: The Court ruled that the trial court erred in awarding damages for 200 piculs of sugar. Section 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a defendant is in default for failure to answer, the relief granted to the plaintiff cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint. The “relief demanded” is determined by the facts specifically alleged in the complaint, not merely the aggregate sum prayed for. The complaint alleged damages for the loss of 60 piculs of sugar. The fact that the total damages awarded (P2,734.50) was less than the total amount prayed for (P3,105) did not justify granting recovery for a quantity of sugar (200 piculs) not alleged in the complaint. The relief granted must be consistent with the specific allegations.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court was MODIFIED. The award of damages was reduced to P2,052, by disallowing the excess value attributed to the unalleged 140 piculs of sugar. In all other respects, particularly the order for the defendant to restore possession of the 21 hectares to the plaintiffs, the judgment was AFFIRMED. Costs were imposed on the appellant.