ALFREDO CABRAL, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE BARACHINA AND SOCORRO ALCARAZ, RESPONDENTS.

This certiorari proceeding questions the correctness of
the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 30, 1979 in its CA?G.R.
No. 47444-R insofar as it awarded interest of 12% per annum on the amount of
P11,920.00 ordered to be refunded by petitioner to said respondents inspite of the fact (a) that there was no such award of interest in the judgment
of the trial court and (b) that respondents did not appeal the omission of such
award of interest.  (Res. dated September 19, 1979, p. 45, Rollo)

The case filed before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur by Clemente Barachina and Socorro Alcaraz against Alfredo Cabral, Salome Delloro-Cabral
and Policarpio Calma, Jr.
was for Recovery of Sum of Money and Damages.

It appears that
Alfredo Cabral and Salome Cabral together with Policarpio
Calma, Jr. sold a parcel of land covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 22945 to Clemente Barachina and
Socorro Alcaraz for P36,000.00.  It was the condition of the sale that this amount
shall be paid in installments and
that P26,000.00
shall pertain to Calma and P10,000.00 to the Cabrals.

Upon the signing of the
deed of sale, a check for P10,000.00 was received and encashed by the Cabrals and
another sum of P1,920.00 was given to Calma.

As shown in the title,
the land has an area of 14.3733 hectares. 
When the buyers were about to possess the land, they found that Mrs. Loreto Manubay was occupying the
greater portion of the property,
which upon verification by a competent surveyor, has an area of 9.8575 hectares, leaving only about four (4)
hectares, contrary to what was stated in the title.  The buyers therefore, desire to have the P10,000.00 paid to the Cabrals and the P1,920.00 paid to Calma returned to
them inasmuch as they could
not possess the land sold to
them.

After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court directs that the
sum of P11,920.00 be paid unto the plaintiffs or to
this court, jointly and severally by the defendants, together with P1,000.00
spent by the plaintiffs by reason of the survey made on the property and the
lawful attorney’s fees which should not exceed P1,000.00 and the costs.

“SO
ORDERED.”

(p. 27, Rollo,
p. 32, Record on Appeal)

Only the Cabrals appealed the aforesaid decision to the Court of
Appeals.  Their co-defendant, Policarpio, Jr. and private respondents (as plaintiffs
therein) did not appeal.

On March
30, 1979, the Court
of Appeals rendered its now assailed Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered affirming
the appealed decision:

“(a)    ordering defendants-appellants to pay to plaintiffs-appellees,
jointly and severally the sum of P11,920.00 with interest of 12% per annum
beginning February 27, 1968 until the same is fully paid;

“(b)    ordering defendants-appellants to pay plaintiffs-appellees, jointly and severally, the sum of P1,000.00 for survey expenses and P1,000.00 by
way of attorney’s fees; and

(c)     to pay the costs.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 23, Rollo)

This is how the Court of Appeals referred to its award of
interest.

“On the second issue, ‘whether or not, under the circumstances
plaintiffs can demand the return of the amount they have paid’, the subject of
the sale being a piece of land covered by a Free Patent, and having been disposed within the period of five (5) years
from the issuance of the decree, and therefore, the same being void ab initio, defendants-appellants acquired no title whatsoever to the money
received by them, in consideration of the sale executed, thus, the obligation
to refund it.  (Dauan vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
19 SCRA, 223).  Not only should
the purchase price be returned but together with it should be paid the interest
thereon at the legal rate until fully paid (Castillo vs. Abalanta,
30 SCRA, 359).” (pp. 22-23, Rollo)

The Cabrals
moved to reconsider the aforesaid decision but the same was denied, hence, the instant petition. 
It is their contention that the ruling of the Court of Appeals departs
from the consistent rulings of this Court “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.” (Anunciacion del
Castillo vs. Miguel del Castillo and the Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33186, June 27,
1988) and “that an appellee, who is not an
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 a case, he must
appeal.” (Higina Alba
vs. Daniel Santander, G.R. NO. L-28409, April 15, 1988)

The
case of De Lima et al. vs. Tayabas Co. et al., G.R. NO. L-35697-99 April 15, 1988, is in point.  The Court of Appeals in that case awarded legal interest (although there was no award made by the lower court and the private respondents also
did not appeal) in its
discretion, pursuant to Art. 2210 of the Civil Code which provides –

“Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon
damages awarded for breach of contract.”

There is no doubt that in the case at bar, there was a breach of
contract.  And, as
further ruled in the case of Castillo vs. Abalayan,
30 SCRA 359, 365.

“x x x it
is neither right nor fair for the homesteader to refuse to comply with his
promise and, at the same time, keep the money he got in consideration
thereof.  Since the contract intended to
be made does not exist, he has no title whatsoever to the money received by him
in connection therewith, and should refund it, with interest thereon at the legal rate
until fully paid.  (underscoring
supplied)

Also noteworthy is the case of Fores
vs. Miranda, 105 Phil. 266, cited in Enecilla vs. Magsaysay, 17 SCRA 125, where this Court upheld the
granting by the Court of Appeals of attorney’s fees even if the respondent did
not appeal from the decision of the trial court.

At any rate, this Court is inclined to adopt a liberal stance in
this case as We have done in previous decisions where
We have ruled that litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their
merits and not on technicality.

We however take exception to the ruling of the Court of Appeals
that the legal interest should be at 12% per annum.  The same should only be at 6% per annum.  Among other things, the court judgment does
not refer to a loan or to a forbearance of recovery.

WHEREFORE, except for the above modification as to the
rate of interest, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.  No pronouncement as to Costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.