MARIA DY AND DANIEL TUAL, PETITIONERS, VS. BAUTISTA KUIZON, RESPONDENT

On May 2, 1951, Bautista Kuizon filed a complaint of forcible entry and
detainer before the Justice of the Peace Court of Tangub, Misamis
Occidental, alleging that on June 8, 1950 defendants Maria Dy and
Daniel Tual by means of force, strategy and intimidation wrested from
him the possession of certain lots which had been converted by him into
a fishpond and that in the course of their illegal entry said
defendants cut the barbed wire fence enclosing portions of said lots,
demolished a camarin and a shed house standing thereon, and destroyed the dikes of the fishpond causing the bangus
fry contained therein to escape, and that since then defendants have
wrongfully withheld the possession of the lots. Plaintiff, however,
reserved his right to recover damages arising out of the destruction of
the camarin

and the dikes in a separate action.

On May 16, 1951, defendants filed their answer alleging that the camarin
and shed house mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint as well as Lot No.
275 were the properties of defendant Maria Dy. After trial, the justice
of the peace court dismissed the complaint holding that it has no
jurisdiction to act thereon in view of the claim of ownership set up by
defendant Maria Dy.

Plaintiff appealed the case to the
court of first instance. Defendants filed their answer. The case was
called for trial during which the parties introduced evidence.
Thereafter, the court rendered decision ordering defendants to pay,
jointly and severally, to plaintiff damages in the amount of P6,000.00
“as reimbursement to the plaintiff for the construction of the fishpond
in question including the cost of the house, dikes and other
improvements in connection with the construction of the fishpond”, and
P2,000.00 for bangus fry which went out of the premises
because of the destruction of the dikes, plus P1,000.00 attorney’s
fees, and the cost of suit.

Defendants took the case to the
Court of Appeals, and after the parties had submitted their briefs,
said court modified the decision appealed from as follows; defendants
were ordered to vacate the area in question and to surrender its
possession to plaintiff, and to pay, jointly and severally, to
plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00 with legal interest thereon from the
date of the filing of the complaint, plus P500.00 attorney’s fees, with
costs in both instances. Hence the present petition for review.

We
find that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioners to vacate
the premises in question and to surrender their possession to
respondent considering that such relief was not granted in the decision
of the court of first instance and respondent did not appeal from such
decision. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that whenever
an appeal is taken in a civil case an appellee who has not himself
appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief
other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below. An
appellee, who is not appellant, may assign errors in his brief where
his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he may
not do so if his purpose is to have the judgment modified or reversed,
for, in such case, he must appeal.^[1]
Here, respondent did not appeal and so it was error for the Court of
Appeals to award to him a relief not granted by the lower court.

We find, however, that the Court of of Appeals committed no error in
ordering petitioners to pay respondent the sum of P2,000.00, with legal
interest thereon, representing the value of the bangus fry
which went out off the premises as a result of the destruction made by
petitioners of the fishpond dikes in question. These bangus
fry may well represent the fruits of the property the possession of
which respondent was deprived by its forcible occupation on the part of
petitioners which he is entitled to recover in action for forcible
entry and detainer. And this is in line with a long line of decisions
rendered by this Court interpreting the nature of the damages that may
be recovered in an action of this nature. Thus, summarizing the rule on
the matter, former Chief Justice Moran says:

”
* * * since the only issue in actions for forcible entry and detainer
is physical possession, the damages which plaintiff is entitled to are
such as he may have sustained as a mere possessor. Material possession
involves only the enjoyment of the thing possessed, and its use and the
collection of its fruits, and these are the only benefits
which the possessor is deprived of in losing his possession. In other
words, plaintiff is entitled only to those damages which are caused by
his loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not to such
damages as are caused to the land or building during the unlawful
possession, which he may recover only if he were the owner of the
property, and he cannot be declared as such in an action for forcible
entry and detainer. Damages to property may be recovered only by the
owner in an ordinary action.” (2 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
1957 ed., p. 301; Italics supplied)

Moreover,
it appears that this case was dismissed by the justice of the peace
court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to act thereon for the
reason that defendant Maria Dy claim ownership over the camarin
and shed house as well as Lot No. 275 which are involved in the instant
action, but that when the case was appealed to the court of first
instance the parties went into trial apparently submitting the case to
its original jurisdiction as though converting the case into one for
revindication. The question raised relative to the nature of the damage
awarded to respondent would therefore be immaterial.

Having
reached the foregoing conclusion, we find no merit in the claim that
the Court of Appeals erred in awarding respondent the amount of P500.00
as attorney’s fees.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from
is modified by ordering petitioners to pay respondent the sum of
P2,000.00 damages, with legal interest from the date of the filing of
the complaint, plus P500.00 attorney’s fees, without costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J. B. L. J., concurs in the result.

---

^[1] Bunge Corporation and Universal Commercial Agencies vs. Elena Camenforte & Co., 91 Phil., 861; 48 Off. Gaz., (8) 3377; See also Pineda & Ampil Manufacturing Co. vs. Ampil, 95 Phil., 930; Cano, et al. vs. Cabangon, et al., 106 Phil.. 718.