Facts:

The case involves Leoncia D. Aguirre, Luis D. Aguirre, Jr., and Aurelia Luningning Aguirre as petitioners against Vicenta Aguirre, Felipe Aguirre, Andres Aguirre, Caridad Aguirre, Socorro Aguirre, Severino Aguirre (as a substitute for his deceased father Dominador Aguirre), Cristeta Lamahang, and Luis L. Aguirre, Jr. as respondents. The litigation originated from the Court of First Instance of Batangas, where the petitioners filed an action for partition and damages concerning the properties left by the spouses Gregorio Aguirre and Regina Antolin. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners but did not award any damages. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, primarily contesting the trial court's failure to grant damages. The appellate court acknowledged that the trial court erred in denying the claim for damages, citing sufficient evidence presented by the petitioners. Testimonies revealed that the petitioners had not received their rightful shares from...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The litigation originated as an action for partition and damages among the surviving descendants of the late Gregorio Aguirre and Regina Antolin.
• The dispute concerns various properties left by the spouses, including unsurveyed lands and coconut plantations, where portions are held in the names of different family members.

Proceedings in the Lower Courts

• The action was initially filed in the Court of First Instance of Batangas where the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioners regarding the partition of the properties.
• Despite a favorable partition ruling, the trial court declined to award damages, primarily due to a finding of insufficient evidence.

Evidence Relating to Damages

• Petitioners presented testimony establishing that, since 1955, they had been deprived of their entitled annual share in the produce of the properties, quantified at approximately P1,000 per year.
• Testimonies detailed that sums such as P200.00 and P800.00, corresponding to different properties, had not been paid.
• The petitioners asserted that non-receipt of these shares resulted in actual damages, which were corroborated by consistent evidence.
• Further evidence demonstrated additional financial burdens suffered by the petitioners, including:
• Attorney’s fees amounting to P5,000.00, which were agreed upon in a contractual arrangement.
• Miscellaneous expenses and expert witness fees, with the latter established at P500.00.
• Moral damages quantified at P2,000.00, highlighting the intangible losses incurred.

Description of the Properties

• The properties include unsurveyed lands with an area of approximately 500 hectares.
• Portions of the lands, such as the coconut plantations in Jaybanga, Lobo, Batangas, are detailed with around 3,000 fruit-bearing coconut trees.
• Additional lands in areas like Pinagbayanan, Lulos, and Matamis, Rosario, Batangas, are under cultivation by about 50 tenant families who have established permanent residence.

Specific Acts and Transactions

• Testimonies revealed that in 1955, a division of the 1/6 share corresponding to the petitioners’ two children was executed by certain family members, effectively precluding the petitioners from receiving their proper share.
• The refusal of the defendants to accede to the petitioners’ demands necessitated protracted litigation, resulting in further damages as the petitioners incurred additional legal and expert costs.

Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in not awarding damages due to an alleged insufficiency of evidence.

• The petitioners maintain that sufficient evidence was presented to substantiate their claim for annual damages.

Whether the appellate court’s award for damages, specifically the characterization of actual damages as a lump sum of P1,000, is inconsistent with the factual findings indicating annual damages of P1,000 from 1955 onward.

• The ambiguity in the dispositive portion of the decision raises questions regarding the intended computation of the damages.

Whether the appellate court’s failure to specifically order interest and costs should be remedied by the Supreme Court.

• Petitioners argued that they were entitled to interest at the legal rate and to corresponding costs from the date of the trial court’s judgment.

Whether the petitioners are justified in claiming an adjustment in the awarded amounts due to the rise in the peso-dollar exchange rate.

• The legal basis for such an adjustment is under scrutiny.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)