RULE 70

CGR CORPORATION, et al. v. ERNESTO L. TREYES, JR.

522 SCRA 765 (2007)

(Ponente, Division)

FACTS: CGR Corporation, Herman M. Benedicto and Alberto R. Benedicto (petitioners) claimed to have
occupied 37.3033 hectares of public land in Barangay Bulanon, Sagay City, Negros Occidental even
before the notarized separate Fishpond Lease Agreement Nos. 5674, 5694 and 5695 in their respective
favor were approved in October 2000 by the Secretary of Agriculture for a period of twenty-five (25) years
or until December 31, 2024.

On November 18, 2000, Ernesto L. Treyes, Jr. (respondent) allegedly forcibly and unlawfully entered the
leased properties and once inside barricaded the entrance to the fishponds, set up a barbed wire fence
along the road going to petitioners’ fishponds, and harvested several tons of milkfish, fry and
fingerlings owned by petitioners.

Petitioners filed with the MTC Sagay City separate complaints for Forcible Entry With Temporary
Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction And Damages, against Ernesto M. Treyes, Sr. and
respondent.

In a separate move, petitioners filed with the Bacolod RTC a complaint for damages against respondent
alleging: plaintiffs had prior possession and enjoyment of the fishpond, that respodents forcibly and
unlawfully entered the fishpond and harvested from therein in violation of Art 539 of NCC, that chapel built
by plaintiff was destroyed and some religious icons were stolen or destroyed

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioners’ complaint for damages on three grounds – litis
pendentia, res judicata and forum shopping.

RTC- dismissed petitioners’ complaint on the ground of prematurity, it holding that a complaint for
damages may only be maintained "after a final determination on the forcible entry cases has been made."

ISSUE: Whether a complainant in a forcible entry case can file an independent action for damages
arising after the act of dispossession had occurred.

HELD: YES.

Section 17, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 17. Judgment. – If after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall
render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of
rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorney’s fees and
costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true, it shall render judgment for the defendant to recover his
costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from
either party and award costs as justice requires. (Emphasis supplied)

The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases thus refer to "rents" or "the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the premises" or "fair rental value of the property" and
attorney’s fees and costs.
There was no basis for the MTC to award actual, moral, and exemplary damages in view of the settled
rule that in ejectment cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. Considering that the only issue
raised in ejectment is that of rightful possession, damages which could be recovered are those which the
plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or 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.

Other damages must thus be claimed in an ordinary action.

Forcible entry case has one cause of action, namely, the alleged unlawful entry by petitioner into the
leased premises out of which three (3) reliefs (denominated by private respondent as its causes of action)
arose: (a) the restoration by the lessor (petitioner herein) of the possession of the leased premises to the
lessee, (b) the claim for actual damages due to the losses suffered by private respondent such as the
deterioration of perishable foodstuffs stored inside the premises and the deprivation of the use of the
premises causing loss of expected profits; and, (c) the claim for attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

On the other hand, the complaint for damages prays for a monetary award consisting of (a) moral
damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of another P500,000.00; (b) actual damages of
P20,000.00 and compensatory damages of P1,000,000.00 representing unrealized profits; and, (c)
P200,000.00 for attorney’s fees and costs, all based on the alleged forcible takeover of the leased
premises by petitioner. Since actual and compensatory damages were already prayed for in the forcible
entry case before the MeTC, it is obvious that this cannot be relitigated in the damage suit before the
RTC by reason of res adjudicata.

The other claims for moral and exemplary damages cannot also succeed considering that these sprung
from the main incident being heard before the MeTC.

It bears noting, however, that as reflected in the earlier-quoted allegations in the complaint for damages
of herein petitioners, their claim for damages have no direct relation to their loss of possession of the
premises. It had to do with respondent’s alleged harvesting and carting away several tons of milkfish and
other marine products in their fishponds, ransacking and destroying of a chapel built by petitioner CGR
Corporation, and stealing religious icons and even decapitating the heads of some of them, after the act
of dispossession had occurred.

Surely, one of the elements of litis pendentia - that the identity between the pending actions, with respect
to the parties, rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, is such that any judgment rendered on one action
will, regardless of which is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration - is not
present, hence, it may not be invoked to dismiss petitioners’ complaint for damages.

Res judicata may not apply because the court in a forcible entry case has no jurisdiction over claims for
damages other than the use and occupation of the premises and attorney’s fees.

Neither may forum-shopping justify a dismissal of the complaint for damages, the elements of litis
pendentia not being present, or where a final judgment in the forcible entry case will not amount to res
judicata in the former.

Petitioners’ filing of an independent action for damages other than those sustained as a result of their
dispossession or those caused by the loss of their use and occupation of their properties could not thus
be considered as splitting of a cause of action.