G.R. No. L-33080 August 15, 1974
LEONCIA D. AGUIRRE, LUIS D. AGUIRRE, JR., and AURELIA LUNINGNING AGUIRRE, petitioners, vs. VICENTA AGUIRRE, FELIPE AGUIRRE, ANDREA AGUIRRE, CARIDAD AGUIRRE, SOCORRO AGUIRRE, SEVERINO AGUIRRE as substitute for his deceased father DOMINADOR AGUIRRE, CRISTETA LAMAHANG, LUIS L. AGUIRRE, JR., and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated as an action for partition and damages concerning the properties left by the spouses Gregorio Aguirre and Regina Antolin. The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, sought their rightful shares in the produce of the extensive family properties, which included ricelands cultivated by around fifty permanent tenants and a coconut plantation with about 3,000 fruit-bearing trees. The petitioners testified that from 1955, the private respondents unjustly withheld their annual share, valued at P1,000, and diverted it to another person. The trial court ruled for the petitioners but denied their claim for damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of damages. It meticulously reviewed the evidence, finding conclusive proof that the petitioners were unlawfully deprived of their share from 1955 onward, causing them actual damages of P1,000 annually. The appellate court also awarded attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and miscellaneous expenses. However, in its dispositive portion, it ambiguously stated the award for actual damages was “from 1955,” without specifying the terminal year, leading to the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its award of damages by failing to specify that the P1,000 annual actual damages should run from 1955 up to the finality of judgment, and in not awarding legal interest and costs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, modifying the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the appellate court’s own detailed findings of fact logically and indubitably established that the petitioners’ actual damages of P1,000 per year commenced in 1955 and continued due to the respondents’ persistent wrongful acts. The dispositive portion’s vague phrasing was a correctible oversight. To construe it otherwise would be an illogical sacrifice of substantial justice for mere technicality, as the opinion’s findings clearly intended compensation for the entire period of deprivation up to the resolution of the case.
Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the award to specify that actual damages are P1,000 annually from 1955 until the obligation is fully settled. Furthermore, the Court ruled that petitioners are entitled to legal interest on all awarded amounts from the date of the trial court’s judgment, as provided under Article 2213 of the Civil Code and Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court. Costs were also adjudged against the respondents. The Court declined to adjust the damages based on currency exchange rate fluctuations, finding no legal basis in the record. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.