LEONARDO SALAS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ROXAS Y CIA., RESPONDENTS.

The sole issue in this petition concerns the right of a tenant to
actual damages upon reinstatement.

On March 31, 1975,
petitioner filed an action to be declared the lawful tenant of private
respondent with the Court of Agrarian Relations of Lipa
City.  On June 6, 1988, the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas, which replaced
the Court of Agrarian Relations, rendered a decision finding that petitioner
was not a bona–fide tenant of the four (4) hectares of
agricultural land formerly tenanted by the father of petitioner.  Nonetheless, private respondent was ordered
by the court to pay damages in the amount of P5,000.00 to petitioner.

Petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals wherein
in due course a decision was rendered on November 25, 1985 reversing and setting aside the appealed decision and
reinstating petitioner as the lawful tenant of private respondent in lieu of
his deceased father Benigno Salas, and requiring
private respondent to pay petitioner P5,000.00 as nominal damages and
P15,000.00 exemplary damages both to earn interest until fully paid.^[1]

As no actual damages were
awarded to petitioner, a partial appeal was undertaken by way of this petition
to this Court containing the following allegations:

“A – RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THERE IS NO WAY OF AWARDING ACTUAL
DAMAGES AS THERE IS ‘NO BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE SAME’, NOTWITHSTANDING
EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SPREAD ON RECORD AND CITED IN THE MEMORANDUM
OF HEREIN PETITIONER.

B. – ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
AWARD FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES, RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW
AND/OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE EXPRESS MANDATE
OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 18, PD 945, AND SECTION 9, BP BLG. 129, VESTING
UPON THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY ISSUE,
QUESTION OR INCIDENT, EVEN IF NOT RAISED, FOR A COMPLETE AND JUST DISPOSITION
OF THE CASE AND AUTHORIZING THE SAID RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS TO TRY AND
CONDUCT HEARINGS, RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS NECESSARY TO
RESOLVE FACTUAL ISSUES RAISED IN CASES FALLING WITHIN ITS ORIGINAL AND
APPELLATE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO GRANT AND CONDUCT NEW TRIALS OR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER THAT FACTUAL BASIS MAY BE OBTAINED AS A BASIS OF DETERMINING THE AWARD FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR
UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION
31, REP. ACT NO. 3844.

C – RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAVING AWARDED EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF
P15,000.00 PLUS NOMINAL DAMAGES OF P5,000.00 TO PETITIONER COMMITTED AN ERROR
OF LAW IN NOT AWARDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE
2208, NEW CIVIL CODE.”^[2]

Petitioner invokes the
provisions of Section 31, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 3844 which provides:

“It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessor:

(1)      To
dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon authorization
of the Court under Section thirty-six.  Should
the agricultural lessee be dispossessed of his landholding without
authorization from the Court, the agricultural lessor
shall be liable for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to
the fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code for unauthorized dispossession.  (Underscoring supplied).”

On
the basis thereof petitioner alleges that he is entitled not only
to reinstatement but also to actual damages. 
He further claims that proof of damage had been adduced at the trial but
was not considered by the appellate court.

This is a petition
for review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.  In this
proceeding only questions of law may be raised. 
Petitioner’s claim for damages is a factual issue which may not be
entertained.  The findings of facts of
the appellate court to the effect that there is no proof of actual damages are
conclusive and binding on this Court.

Further, the argument of
petitioner that assuming there is no evidence of actual damages, the Court of
Appeals should have asked petitioner to present evidence in this aspect as it is authorized to receive evidence in accordance with
Section 18, P.D. No. 945 and Section 9, B. P Blg. 129, is untenable. 
The burden of proof of the damages suffered is on the party claiming the
same.  It is the duty of petitioner to
present evidence to support his claim for actual damages.  If he failed to do so he has only himself to
blame if no award for actual damages is handed down.

Nevertheless, under the
circumstances of the case the Court concedes that petitioner is entitled to an
award of attorney’s fees which the Court sets at P10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED in that the questioned decision is modified by awarding an
additional amount of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees to be paid by private
respondent to petitioner.  Costs against
private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Justice Segundino G. Chua was the ponente,
concurred in by Justices Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr. and Bonifacio A. Cacdac, Jr.

^[2]
Page 6, Rollo.