G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954
Basilia Cabrera and Ramon Diokno, petitioners, vs. Florencia Belen and Alfonso Buiser, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated as an action for “reinvindicacion” in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, with petitioners Basilia Cabrera and Ramon Diokno as plaintiffs and respondents Florencia Belen and Alfonso Buiser as defendants. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Atty. Ramon Diokno entitled to the property in question, ordering the defendants to execute a deed of conveyance in his favor, awarding him damages of P900 per annum from July 1943 until the finality of the decision, making the injunction permanent, and imposing costs against the defendants. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment but modified it by reducing the amount of damages to P600 per annum. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Court of Appeals could not reduce the damages because the respondents did not assign it as an error, and that it failed to award interest under section 6, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court. The motion was denied, prompting the petitioners to file this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing and reducing the amount of damages awarded by the trial court despite the respondents not specifically assigning it as an error in their appeal.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not awarding interest on the judgment pursuant to section 6, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

1. No. The Court held that while the respondents did not make a specific assignment of error regarding the amount of damages, they extensively discussed and assailed the correctness of the trial court’s finding on damages in the body of their brief. This substantial compliance with section 5 of Rule 53 warranted the appellate court to rule upon the point, as the purpose of the rule is to compel the appellant to specify the questions for appeal. A clear discussion of an alleged error effectively serves the purpose of a particular assignment of error.
2. No. The Court ruled that section 6 of Rule 53 authorizes the granting of interest on the judgment of the appellate court in proper cases, specifically in favor of a party who has appealed and claimed and established his right to interest from the outset. It does not apply to a party in a defensive position as an appellee merely sustaining the appealed judgment. Granting interest under this provision cannot be considered a penalty for appealing, as this would improperly restrict the statutory privilege to appeal. Furthermore, since the respondents (appellants) successfully reduced the damages awarded, showing the trial court’s judgment was partly erroneous, penalizing them with interest would be unjust. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.