RUPERTA CAMARA, NATALIA CAMARA, ZOSIMA GAMARA, ABIGNIGO CAMARA, SADRAC CAMARA AND REBECA CAMARA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. CELESTINO AGUILAR, ROBERTA AGUILAR, ALICIA AGUILA…

This is an action to recover the sum of P300 for clearing a parcel
of land described in the complaint, and of P750 for its cultivation,
caring and preservation of the coconut trees and other fruit-bearing
trees planted therein. The plaintiffs further pray that the defendants
jointly and severally be ordered to pay them the sum of P10,100
representing the value of the coconut, trees and other fruit-bearing
trees planted in the parcel of land or that they be declared entitled
to pay to the defendants the reasonable value of the parcel of land.

The plaintiffs allege that they are all of age except Rebeca Camara for whom her sister Ruperta was appointed guardian ad litem;
that they are the children of the late Severino Camara who since 1915
had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of a parcel of land
situated in the barrio of Balubad, municipality of Atimonan, province
of Quezon, formerly Tayabas, containing an area of 5 hectares, more or
less, and bounded on the North by the land of Catalino Velasco, on the
East by the land of Jose Camara 1.°, on the South by the lands of
Santiago Villamorel and Antonio Saniel, and on the West by the land of
Antonio Marquez; that the parcel of land was inherited by Severino
Camara from his parents Paulino Camara and Modesta Villamorel; that the
late Severino Camara and his wife Vicenta Nera represented to their
children, the plaintiffs herein, that said parcel of land belonged
exclusively to him; that the plaintiffs and their husbands helped
cultivate and improve the parcel of land during the time Severino
Camara was in possession thereof and spent the amount sought to be
recovered by them for planting 1,500 coconut and other fruit-bearing
trees; that after the death of Severino Camara the plaintiffs became
the true, exclusive and absolute owner of the parcel of land and
improvements thereon; that Fausto Aguilar brought an action for
ejectment (reivindicacion) against Vicenta Nera involving the
parcel of land described above (civil case No. 4835) and on 26 January
1949 the Court of First Instance rendered judgment in said case, the
dispositive part of which reads as follows:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS the Court
hereby declares the herein plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the
land in question (the above described parcel of land) which is more
particularly described in the complaint and Exhibits “A” and “B”, and
orders the herein defendant and intervenors to immediately restore
possession of said land to the plaintiff, to pay said plaintiff the sum
of P1,200 which is the value of the harvest of the products on said
land obtained by them from 1941 up to the filing of this complaint, and
to pay the costs of the proceeding. For lack of merits, the
counterclaim and the third party claim are hereby dismissed;

that on 21 October 1950 the Court of Appeals rendered Judgment in said case, the dispositive part of which is as follows:

Upon the question of damages we agree with the trial
court that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the property in
question may yield, at most, P200 per year, but appellee’s right to
collect damages on that account should start only from the date of the
filing of the complaint on December 24, 1947, or from the year 1948.

Upon
all the foregoing, we are of the opinion, and so hold that the trial
court did not commit the errors assigned in appellant’s brief.

Wherefore, modified as above indicated, the appealed judgment is
hereby affirmed, with costs; that they, together with their deceased
father Severino Camara were possessors. In good faith of the parcel of
land; that for that reason they are entitled to be reimbursed and paid
by the defendants for the trees they planted in the parcel of land;
that the defendant Celestino Aguilar is the son of the late Fausto
Aguilar, plaintiff in civil case No. 4835 referred to, and the other
defendant, Purification Villamiel, is the widow of the late Isidro
Aguilar, another son of the late Fausto Aguilar and the three minor
defendants are children of the deceased Isidro Aguilar and his wife
Purification Villamiel who represents them as their guardian ad litem.

A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on the ground that the
judgment rendered in civil case No. 4835, which was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals with a modification only as above stated, bars the
bringing of the present action, for the plaintiffs herein were
intervenors in the former case (No. 4835).

The Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action
brought in this case had been adjudged in civil case No. 4835 and that
the complaint states no cause of action. Hence the appeal

The appellants contend that the question of damages was not passed
upon in the former case. The court below, however, held that this
action is barred by the prior judgment because there is identity of
parties, the same subject matter and the same cause of action, as
provided for in section 45, Rule 39, the herein plaintiffs having
intervened and joined the defendants in the former case, the subject
matter involved in both cases being the same parcel of land and the
cause of action being ejectment (reivindicacion).

The fact that damages were awarded to the then plaintiff against the
then defendants and intervenors negatives the latter’s right to claim
damages in the present case, for such award is inconsistent with the
claim that they were in possession of the parcel of land in good faith
and are entitled to recover what they spent for clearing, cultivating
and planting the parcel of land and the fruits which they failed to
reap or harvest therein or their value.

The contention that a counterclaim for expenses incurred in clearing
and cultivating the parcel of land and planting coconut and other
fruit-bearing trees therein could not have been set up in the former
case because that would have been inconsistent with or would have
weakened the claim that they were entitled to the parcel of land, is
without merit, because “A party may set forth two or more statements of
a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause
of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses.”^[1]
Hence, the plaintiffs herein and intervenors in the former case could
have set up the claim that they were entitled to the parcel of land and
alternatively that assuming (hypothetically) that they were not
entitled to the parcel of land, at least they were entitled as
possessors in good faith to the coconut and other fruit-bearing trees
planted by them in the parcel of land and their fruits or their value.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,and Diokno, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 9, Peale 15.