August 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > August 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 149931 : August 08, 2007] RICARDO REGALIA, SR., PETITIONER VS. MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ, WHO CLAIMS TO REPRESENT THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.:
[G.R. No. 149931 : August 08, 2007]
RICARDO REGALIA, SR., PETITIONER VS. MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ, WHO CLAIMS TO REPRESENT THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 8 August 2007:
G.R. No. 149931 - RICARDO REGALIA, SR., petitioner versus MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ, who claims to represent the Republic of the Philippines, and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Before us is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated July 4, 2001 and Resolution[2] dated September 5, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61373, which had affirmed the Decision[3] dated May 29, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental. Said trial court upheld the ruling[4] dated June 15, 1999 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kabankalan City which ordered petitioner Ricardo Regalia, Sr. to vacate portions of the land reservation area of the Negros State College of Agriculture (NSCA), formerly known as the Negros Occidental Agricultural College.[5] NSCA's land at Sitio Banga, Barangay Orong, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, had been occupied by petitioner Regalia.
The facts are as follows:
The NSCA, represented by Dr. Marcelino A. Dechavez, then Vocational School Superintendent II and now NSCA President, filed before the MTC of Kabankalan City a Complaint[6] dated December 2, 1998 for unlawful detainer against Regalia.
The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 176-98, alleged that the NSCA is a government institution of higher learning in agriculture created and existing under Republic Act No. 43[7] approved on October 2, 1946 and Presidential Proclamation No. 459[8] signed on December 23, 1953 by then President Elpidio Quirino. NSCA has a total land reservation area of 4,653.7034 hectares situated at Sitio Banga, Barangay Orong, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.[9]
The complaint further alleged that Regalia had been occupying, through the tolerance of NSCA, portions of NSCA's property, where he planted sugarcane, cereals, trees and other crops without paying for the land's use.[10] Since NSCA already needed the property for the expansion of its programs and projects, it notified Regalia several times to vacate the premises. The last written demand was made on May 7, 1998. However, Regalia refused to vacate.[11]
In his Answer with Counterclaim,[12] Regalia alleged that he is in possession of the land by virtue of an Integrated Social Forestry Permit issued by the proper government agency and that he had been in possession of the land continuously and without interference since 1957.
On June 15, 1999, the MTC ruled in favor of NSCA, the dispositive portion of the Decision states:
Regalia then filed the instant petition before this Court. But in a Resolution dated November 12, 2001, Regalia's petition for review was denied for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error. The Resolution reads as follows:
In his Comments and Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration,[16] Dechavez contended that the award of annual rental of P828,002 in lieu of actual damages is not exorbitant, arguing that when Regalia first entered the college reservation all he had were a carabao, native plow, hoes and bolos, and after more than two decades of occupying 215.5 hectares, Regalia has amassed a dozen cargo trucks that haul his sugarcane to the sugar mills, a farm tractor, owner jeep, brand-new Nissan pick-up, rice mill, two repair shops and a marble residential house enclosed with hollow blocks and an iron grill fence. Dechavez also argued that the customary rate of sugar lands rental per hectare in the locality ranges from P3,000 to P7,000. Taking the average to be P5,000 per hectare multiplied by 215.5 hectares, the total area occupied by Regalia, Regalia should pay a total rental of P1,077,500 yearly. However, the MTC reduced the amount to only P828,002.[17]
In his reply, [18] Regalia countered that the imposition of P82 annual rental was a grave error because no evidence was presented to establish that the amount is "reasonable monthly rental."[19]
In its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment, [20] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked to be excused from filing a comment to the petition since the amount of rental to be paid by petitioner is a private matter and since the OSG is merely a nominal party. This Court granted the OSG's motion.[21]
On January 28, 2002, this Court resolved to grant the reconsideration and reinstate the petition.[22]
The sole issue to be resolved is: Did the MTC err in ordering Regalia to pay NSCA the amount of P828,002 per annum from May 7, 1998 as fair rental value?
We have reviewed the records of this case but found no basis for the award of P828,002 as annual rental to NSCA.
Fair rental value is the amount which a willing lessee would pay and a willing lessor would receive, for the use of a certain property, neither being under compulsion and both parties having a reasonable knowledge of all facts, such as the extent, character and utility of the property, sales and holding prices of similar land and the highest and best use of the property. In Herpolsheimer v. Christopher[23] it was held that the rental value refers to the value as ascertained by proof of what the property would rent or by evidence of other facts from which the fair rental value may be determined.[24]
In this case, the MTC decision merely stated that NSCA claims the amount of P828,002 as actual damages and awarded the amount of P828,002 as the fair rental value for the use and occupation of the property per annum from May 7, 1998 until possession thereof shall have been restored.[25] In fine, the MTC ordered Regalia to pay the said amount merely and solely because such was the amount demanded by NSCA. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. But both courts gave no explanation on how they arrived at the yearly amount of P828,002. Both courts thus made a conclusion without any factual basis. The Court of Appeals decision affirmed the decisions of the RTC and MTC but it admitted that the MTC decision does not show on its face the basis for the award albeit affirming the decisions on the ground that Regalia offered no controverting evidence as to the fair rental value of the property,[26] a ground which has no legal basis.
Section 17,[27] Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, is clear - the trial court is empowered to award reasonable compensation only if the claim is true. In Badillo v. Tayag,[28] we held that a court may fix the reasonable amount of rent, but must still base its action on the evidence adduced by the parties.[29]
Moreover, the trial court is mandated to set out in its decision the facts alleged and proven, with a particularization of the evidence, testimonial and documentary, upon which the findings of facts are based; otherwise, it would be impossible for the appellate court to determine whether or not such findings were sufficiently and logically supported by the evidence relied upon by the parties and the court. In Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[30] we held that a decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by an appellate court.[31] Patently, considering the precedents and the circumstances in this case, we must rule against the award of P828,002 by the three lower courts.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is GRANTED. Let this case be remanded soonest to the Municipal Trial Court of Kabankalan City for it to determine with dispatch the fair rental value or reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the cited property. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 149931 - RICARDO REGALIA, SR., petitioner versus MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ, who claims to represent the Republic of the Philippines, and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Before us is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated July 4, 2001 and Resolution[2] dated September 5, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61373, which had affirmed the Decision[3] dated May 29, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental. Said trial court upheld the ruling[4] dated June 15, 1999 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kabankalan City which ordered petitioner Ricardo Regalia, Sr. to vacate portions of the land reservation area of the Negros State College of Agriculture (NSCA), formerly known as the Negros Occidental Agricultural College.[5] NSCA's land at Sitio Banga, Barangay Orong, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, had been occupied by petitioner Regalia.
The facts are as follows:
The NSCA, represented by Dr. Marcelino A. Dechavez, then Vocational School Superintendent II and now NSCA President, filed before the MTC of Kabankalan City a Complaint[6] dated December 2, 1998 for unlawful detainer against Regalia.
The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 176-98, alleged that the NSCA is a government institution of higher learning in agriculture created and existing under Republic Act No. 43[7] approved on October 2, 1946 and Presidential Proclamation No. 459[8] signed on December 23, 1953 by then President Elpidio Quirino. NSCA has a total land reservation area of 4,653.7034 hectares situated at Sitio Banga, Barangay Orong, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.[9]
The complaint further alleged that Regalia had been occupying, through the tolerance of NSCA, portions of NSCA's property, where he planted sugarcane, cereals, trees and other crops without paying for the land's use.[10] Since NSCA already needed the property for the expansion of its programs and projects, it notified Regalia several times to vacate the premises. The last written demand was made on May 7, 1998. However, Regalia refused to vacate.[11]
In his Answer with Counterclaim,[12] Regalia alleged that he is in possession of the land by virtue of an Integrated Social Forestry Permit issued by the proper government agency and that he had been in possession of the land continuously and without interference since 1957.
On June 15, 1999, the MTC ruled in favor of NSCA, the dispositive portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE and upon the foregoing disquisitions, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, to wit:The RTC, in a decision dated May 29, 2000, affirmed the MTC. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision states:
1. - Ordering the defendant Ricardo Regalia, Sr., or anyone claiming rights under him, or anyone from whom defendant claims such rights, to vacate the disputed portions and to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff; 2. - Ordering said defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P828,002.00 per annum, from May 7, 1998, representing the fair rental value for defendant's use and occupation of the disputed portions, until possession thereof shall have been restored to the plaintiff; and, [3]. - Ordering the DISMISSAL of plaintiff's claims for exemplary damages and of the defendant's COUNTERCLAIM.
SO ORDERED.[13]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated June 15, 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED.The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the abovementioned decisions.
SO ORDERED. [14]
Regalia then filed the instant petition before this Court. But in a Resolution dated November 12, 2001, Regalia's petition for review was denied for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error. The Resolution reads as follows:
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals dated July 4, 2001 and September 5, 2001, respectively, the Court Resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case and for being frivolous, the same having been previously decided by three (3) other courts.[15]On December 19, 2001, Regalia filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, raising as sole issue his claim that the award of P828,002 per annum to NSCA, as rent of the property, is exorbitant.
In his Comments and Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration,[16] Dechavez contended that the award of annual rental of P828,002 in lieu of actual damages is not exorbitant, arguing that when Regalia first entered the college reservation all he had were a carabao, native plow, hoes and bolos, and after more than two decades of occupying 215.5 hectares, Regalia has amassed a dozen cargo trucks that haul his sugarcane to the sugar mills, a farm tractor, owner jeep, brand-new Nissan pick-up, rice mill, two repair shops and a marble residential house enclosed with hollow blocks and an iron grill fence. Dechavez also argued that the customary rate of sugar lands rental per hectare in the locality ranges from P3,000 to P7,000. Taking the average to be P5,000 per hectare multiplied by 215.5 hectares, the total area occupied by Regalia, Regalia should pay a total rental of P1,077,500 yearly. However, the MTC reduced the amount to only P828,002.[17]
In his reply, [18] Regalia countered that the imposition of P82 annual rental was a grave error because no evidence was presented to establish that the amount is "reasonable monthly rental."[19]
In its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment, [20] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked to be excused from filing a comment to the petition since the amount of rental to be paid by petitioner is a private matter and since the OSG is merely a nominal party. This Court granted the OSG's motion.[21]
On January 28, 2002, this Court resolved to grant the reconsideration and reinstate the petition.[22]
The sole issue to be resolved is: Did the MTC err in ordering Regalia to pay NSCA the amount of P828,002 per annum from May 7, 1998 as fair rental value?
We have reviewed the records of this case but found no basis for the award of P828,002 as annual rental to NSCA.
Fair rental value is the amount which a willing lessee would pay and a willing lessor would receive, for the use of a certain property, neither being under compulsion and both parties having a reasonable knowledge of all facts, such as the extent, character and utility of the property, sales and holding prices of similar land and the highest and best use of the property. In Herpolsheimer v. Christopher[23] it was held that the rental value refers to the value as ascertained by proof of what the property would rent or by evidence of other facts from which the fair rental value may be determined.[24]
In this case, the MTC decision merely stated that NSCA claims the amount of P828,002 as actual damages and awarded the amount of P828,002 as the fair rental value for the use and occupation of the property per annum from May 7, 1998 until possession thereof shall have been restored.[25] In fine, the MTC ordered Regalia to pay the said amount merely and solely because such was the amount demanded by NSCA. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. But both courts gave no explanation on how they arrived at the yearly amount of P828,002. Both courts thus made a conclusion without any factual basis. The Court of Appeals decision affirmed the decisions of the RTC and MTC but it admitted that the MTC decision does not show on its face the basis for the award albeit affirming the decisions on the ground that Regalia offered no controverting evidence as to the fair rental value of the property,[26] a ground which has no legal basis.
Section 17,[27] Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, is clear - the trial court is empowered to award reasonable compensation only if the claim is true. In Badillo v. Tayag,[28] we held that a court may fix the reasonable amount of rent, but must still base its action on the evidence adduced by the parties.[29]
Moreover, the trial court is mandated to set out in its decision the facts alleged and proven, with a particularization of the evidence, testimonial and documentary, upon which the findings of facts are based; otherwise, it would be impossible for the appellate court to determine whether or not such findings were sufficiently and logically supported by the evidence relied upon by the parties and the court. In Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[30] we held that a decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by an appellate court.[31] Patently, considering the precedents and the circumstances in this case, we must rule against the award of P828,002 by the three lower courts.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is GRANTED. Let this case be remanded soonest to the Municipal Trial Court of Kabankalan City for it to determine with dispatch the fair rental value or reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the cited property. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 47-56. penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Sergio L. Pesta�o concurring.
[2] Id. at 57. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Eliezer R. De Los Santos concurring.
[3] Id. at 37-40.
[4] Id. at 30-36.
[5] Id. at 158-163. The Negros Occidental Agricultural College was renamed the "Negros State College of Agriculture" by virtue of Republic Act No. 9141, approved on July 3, 2001.
[6] Id. at 20-22.
[7] Id at 23-A. AN ACT TO ESTABLISH, ORGANIZE AND MAINTAIN ONE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL IN THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND TO APPROPRIATE CERTAIN SUMS OF MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE.
[8] Id. at 24-25. RESERVING FOR AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL PURPOSES CERTAIN PARCELS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SITUATED IN THE BARRIO OF ORONG, MUNICIPALITY OF KABANKALAN, PROVINCE OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ISLAND OF NEGROS.
[9] Id. at 20.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 20-21.
[12] Id. at 26-29.
[13] Id. at 35-36.
[14] Id. at 40.
[15] Id. at 59.
[16] Id. at 89-93.
[17] Id. at 89.
[18] Id. at 104-118.
[19] Id. at 107.
[20] Id. at 140-143.
[21] Id. at 144.
[22] Id. at 84.
[23] 111 N.W. 359 (1907).
[24] Asian Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates, G.R. No. 142383, August 29, 2003, 410 SCRA 202, 223.
[25] Rollo, p. 34.
[26] Id. at 55.
[27] 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 sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires.
[28] G.R. Nos. 143976 & 145846, April 3, 2003, 400 SCRA 494.
[29] Asian Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates, supra at 221-222.
[30] G. R. No. 88709, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 127.
[31] Asian Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates, supra at 221-222.
