1 Morales V CA
1 Morales V CA
*
G.R. No. 117228. June 19, 1997.
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
283
2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages, which include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury may be
recovered in the cases enumerated in Article 2219 and
284
Same; Same; Attorney’s Fees; The general rule is that attorney’s fees
cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no
premium should be placed on the right to litigate.—For the same reason
the award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses must suffer the same
fate. The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule and
counsel’s fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The
power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 of the Civil
Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be
left to speculation and conjecture. The general rule is that attorney’s fees
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
285
_____________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
1 Annex “A” of Petition; Rollo, 9-20. Per Tayao-Jaguros, L., J., with Elbinias, J.
and Salas, B., JJ., concurring.
2 Original Record (OR), Civil Case No. 265, 51.
3 OR, 176.
286
4
On 26 August 1991 the Trial Court rendered its decision in favor
of plaintiffs, private respondents herein, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:
The following is the trial court’s summary of the evidence for the
plaintiffs:
The evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs discloses that the Plaintiffs are the
absolute and exclusive owners of the premises in question having
purchased the same from Celso Avelino, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute
Sale (Exh. “C”), a public instrument. They later caused the transfer of its
tax declaration in the name of the female plaintiff (Exh. “I”) and paid the
realty taxes thereon (Exh. “K” & series).
Celso Avelino (Plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest) purchased the land in
question consisting of two adjoining parcels while he was still a bachelor
and the City Fiscal of Calbayog City from Alejandra Mendiola and Celita
Bartolome, through a ‘Escritura de Venta’ (Exh. “B”). After the purchase,
he caused the transfer of the tax declarations of the two parcels in his
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
name (Exhs. “D” & “E” to “G” & “H”) as well as consolidated into one
the two tax declarations in his name
_____________
4 Annex “E” of Petition, OR Civil Case No. 265, 459-482; Rollo, 179-202. Per Judge
Roberto A. Navidad.
5 Id., 482; id., 202.
287
(Exh. “F”). With the knowledge of the Intervenor and the defendant,
(Cross-examination of Morales, t.s.n., pp. 13-14) Celso Avelino caused
the survey of the premises in question, in his name, by the Bureau of
Lands (Exh. “J”). He also built his residential house therein with Marcial
Aragon (now dead) as his master carpenter who was even scolded by him
for constructing the ceiling too low.
When the two-storey residential house was finished, he took his
parents, Rosendo Avelino and Juana Ricaforte, and his sister, Aurea, who
took care of the couple, to live there until their deaths. He also declared
this residential house in his tax declaration to the premises in question
(Exh. “F”) and paid the corresponding realty taxes, keeping intact the
receipts which he comes to get or Aurea would go to Cebu to give it to
him (t.s.n. Morales, pp. 4-6).
After being the City Fiscal of Calbayog, Celso Avelino became an
Immigration Officer and later as Judge of the Court of First Instance in
Cebu with his sister, Aurea, taking care of the premises in question. While
he was already in Cebu, the defendant, without the knowledge and
consent of the former, constructed a small beauty shop in the premises in
question.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs are the purchasers of the other real
properties of Celso Avelino, one of which is at Acedillo (now Sen. J.D.
Avelino) street, after they were offered by Celso Avelino to buy the
premises in question, they examined the premises in question and talked
with the defendant about that fact, the latter encouraged them to purchase
the premises in question rather than the property going to somebody else
they do not know and that he will vacate the premises as soon as his uncle
will notify him to do so. Thus, they paid the purchase price and Exh. “C”
was executed in their favor.
However, despite due notice from his uncle to vacate the premises in
question (Exh. “N”), the defendant refused to vacate or demolish the
beauty shop unless he is reimbursed P35,000.00 for it although it was
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
valued at less than P5,000.00. So, the Plaintiffs demanded, orally and in
writing (Exhs. “L” & “M”) to vacate the premises. The defendant refused.
As the plaintiffs were about to undertake urgent repairs on the
dilapidated residential building, the defendant had already occupied the
same, taking in paying boarders and claiming already ownership of the
premises in question, thus they filed this case.
Plaintiffs, being the neighbors of Celso Avelino, of their own
knowledge are certain that the premises in question is indeed owned by
their predecessor-in-interest because the male plaintiff used to
288
play in the premises when he was still in his teens while the female
plaintiff resided with the late Judge Avelino. Besides, their inquiries and
documentary evidence shown to them by Celso Avelino confirm this fact.
Likewise, the defendant and Intervenor did not reside in the premises in
question because they reside respectively in Brgy. Tarobucan and Brgy.
Trinidad (Sabang), both of Calbayog City with their own residential
houses there.
Due to the damages they sustained as a result of the filing of this case,
the plaintiffs are claiming P50,000.00 for mental anguish; monthly rental
of the premises in question of P1,500.00 starting from March 1987;
6
litigation expenses of P5,000.00 and P10,000.00 for Attorney’s fees.
The trial court’s summary of the evidence for the defendants and
intervenor is as follows:
_____________
289
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
_____________
290
shutters to be replaced, the lumber of the eaves about to fall and the
hollow-block fence to be straightened out, a portion along Umbria street
(West) cut in the middle with the other half to the south is tilting while the
premises inside the fence farther from the beauty shop to be cleaned.
From the evidence adduced by the parties, the following facts are
undisputed:
291
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
disputed premises (19), very clearly show that her claim is neither positive
nor categorical but is rather unconvincing.
Three. The foregoing testimony of the Intervenor also show that she is
already in laches.
Four. The present condition of the premises, especially the two-storey
building which has been left to deteriorate or ruin steadily clearly betrays
or belies Intervenor’s pretense of ownership of the disputed premises.
Five. If the premises in question is really owned in common by the
children of Rosendo and Juana Avelino, why is it that the surviving sisters
of the Intervenor did not join her in this case and intervene to protect their
respective interests?
292
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
On the contrary, the last part of Art. 1448 of Our New Civil Code
bolster’s Plaintiff’s ownership over the disputed premises. It expressly
provides: “x x x. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a
child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no
trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in
favor of the child.” (italics supplied)
Finally, from the testimony of the Intervenor (p. 22) the truth is out in
that the Intervenor is putting up her pretense of ownership over the
disputed premises only when the defendant was being advised to vacate
and only to shield him from vacating therefrom. Thus, on question of the
Court, she declared:
293
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
______________
294
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
_____________
295
10
In its decision of 20 April 1994 the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court.
Their motion to reconsider the decision having been denied in
11
the resolution of 14 September 1994 for lack of merit, petitioners
filed the instant petition wherein they claim that:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
_____________
10 Supra, note 1.
11 Rollo, 22.
296
297
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
the respondents.
_____________
298
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
1. it is a relationship;
2. it is a relationship of fiduciary character;
3. it is a relationship with respect to property, not one
involving merely personal duties;
4. it involves the existence of equitable duties imposed upon
the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the
benefit of another; and
5. it arises as a result of a manifestation of intention to create
13
the relationship.
_______________
13 Id.
14 Article 1441, Civil Code of the Philippines.
15 4 TOLENTINO 673.
16 Huang v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 420, 428 [1994]; Vda. de Esconde v.
Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 66, 73-74 [1996].
299
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
Art. 1448. There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal
estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the
purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the
trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom
the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying
the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably
presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child.
______________
300
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
On this basis alone, the case for petitioners must fall. The
preponderance of evidence, as found by the trial court and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, established positive acts of
Celso Avelino indicating, without doubt, that he considered the
property he purchased from the Mendiolas as his exclusive
property. He had its tax declaration transferred in his name, caused
the property surveyed for him by the Bureau of Lands, and
faithfully paid the realty taxes. Finally, he sold the property to
private respondents.
The theory of implied trust with Celso Avelino as the trustor
and his parents Rosendo Avelino and Juan Ricaforte as
______________
301
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
______________
302
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
rales who has prior and legal possession over the properties in question
28
and who is a builder in good faith of the shop building thereon.
______________
28 Id., 37.
29 OR, 44-45.
30 Exhibit “J,” OR, 65.
31 Id., 275.
32 Supra, note 23.
303
______________
33 National Power Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 649, 655 [1993].
34 Page 21 of Decision, OR 479; Rollo, 199.
304
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
If indeed the property was merely held in trust by Celso for his
parents, Concepcion would have been entitled to a proportionate
part thereof as co-heir. However, by her Confirmation, Concepcion
made a solemn declaration against interest. Petitioners, realizing
that the Confirmation was admissible, attempted35 to cushion its
impact by offering in evidence as Exhibit “4” Concepcion’s
affidavit, dated 16 June 1987, wherein Concepcion stated:
______________
35 OR, 394-395.
36 Page 6, Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo, 277.
305
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
gent reason why Priscila and her sisters did not do anything to
have their respective shares in the property conveyed to them after
the death of Rosendo Avelino in 1980. Neither is there any
evidence that during his lifetime Rosendo demanded from Celso
that the latter convey the land to the former, which Rosendo could
have done after Juana’s death on 31 May 1965. This omission was
mute and eloquent proof of Rosendo’s recognition that Celso was
the real buyer of the property in 1948 and the absolute and
exclusive owner thereof.
II
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted
in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works,
sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles
546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of
the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or
planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more
than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable
rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of
the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
______________
306
Even assuming the argument that Rodolfo Morales was a builder in bad
faith because he was aware of Celso Avelino’s supposed exclusive
ownership of the land, still, however, the unrebutted evidence shows that
Celso Avelino consented to Rodolfo Morales’ construction of the beauty
shop on the land.—TSN, April 4, 1988, p. 40; TSN, April 4, 1988, p. 40;
TSN, October 19, 1990, p. 21. Under Article 453 of the Civil Code, such
consent is considered bad faith on the part of the landowner. In such a
case, the rights of the landowner and the builder shall be considered as
39
though both acted in good faith.
______________
38 OR, 36.
39 Said Article pertinently provides as follows:
Art. 453. If there was bad faith not only on the part of the person who built . . . on the land of
another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall
be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was
done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part.
40 Rollo, 277.
307
III
_____________
ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
308
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
_____________
ART. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if
the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same
rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
309
Accordingly, for lack of factual and legal basis, the award of moral
damages must be set aside.
For the same reason the award of attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses must suffer the same fate. The award of attorney’s fees is
the exception rather than the rule and counsel’s fees are not to be
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/29
7/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 274
awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to
award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code
demands factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot
45
be left to speculation and conjecture. The general rule is that
attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of
the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to
46
litigate.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, except as to the award of
moral damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses which are
hereby DELETED, the judgment of the respondent Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Judgment affirmed.
——o0o——
______________
310
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c292d1fb0ffa431b7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/29