REMEDIES OF PERSONS DEPRIVED OF POSSESSION

DUMO V. ESPINAS
FACTS:
1. The present case arose from a complaint for forcible entry with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction filed by Sps Dumo (Petitioners)
against respondents

2. Sps Dumo’s allegations:

 Sps Dumo are the owners-possessors of a parcel of land with all the improvements thereon
 Defendant Severa Espina (among the respondents) filed for quieting of title and/or
ownership and possession against plaintiffs. Although they were able to obtain a favourable
judgment, the Sheriff was not able to enforce the same
 Disgruntled, all defendants, acting for the interest of Severa, took it upon themselves,
employing force, intimidation and threat to enter the said real property, armed with sticks,
bolos, and other deadly weapons, successfully drove out the plaintiffs.
 They totally tore down all the improvements standing thereon, consisting of, but not limited
to shed structures intended to rent to the public.

3. Espinas’ allegations
 They purchased the property and declared the same for taxation purposes
 They were already declared the lawful owners of the parcel of land in a civil casae
 By virtue of said decision, defendants entered, occupied and possessed said land in their
right of ownership, cleaned the same of illegally constructed structures which were done
without their knowledge and constent.

4. MTC:
 In favour of Sps Dumo.
 Ordered Espinas to vacate.
 Espinas to pay actual, moral, exemplary damages and Atty’s fees to Sps Dumo.

5. RTC:
 Reversed, set aside case filed by Sps Dumo and deleted award of damages.
 Espinas enjoyed possession even before filing of the case until Sps Dumo erected a seawall
and cyclone wire on the property without Severa Espina’s consent.
6. CA:
 Reinstated the decision of MTC but with modifications—deleting award of AME damages.

ISSUE: WON deletion of award of damages in favour of Sps Dumo was proper?

HELD: Yes, there is no basis for the award of damages.

1. Sps Dumo contends that since they did not raise the issue of damages before RTC and CA, RTC
and CA did not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter
 UNTENABLE. Appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they
are not assigned as error especially if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just
decision.

2. Furthermore, the rule is settled that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only
damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value of the reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that of rightful possession;
hence, the damages which could be recovered are those caused by the loss of the use and
occupation of the property, AND NOT THE DAMAGES WHICH HE MAY HAVE SUFFERED BUT
WHICH HAVE NO DIRECT RELATION TO HIS LOSS OF MATERIAL POSSESSION.