c.)As to requisites for extraordinary inflation Ruling: No. The elements are:
Equitable PCI Bank vs Ng Sheung Ngor, GR No. 171545, 1. that there was an official declaration of extraordinary
December 19, 2007 inflation or deflation from the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP)
Facts: Ng Sheung Ngor doing business under the name
of Ken Marketing, Ken Appliance Division and Benjamin 2. that the obligation was contractual in nature and
Go went into an agreement with Equitable Bank to avail
3. that the parties expressly agreed to consider the
of their peso and dollar credit facilities because they
effects of the extraordinary inflation or deflation.
had low interest rates. The group then signed the
promissory notes on various dates beginning on 1996. Despite the devaluation of the peso, the BSP never
However, they were unaware of the escalation clauses declared a situation of extraordinary inflation. Moreover,
in the documents which allowed Equitable Bank to although the obligation in this instance arose out of a
increase the interest rates at their pleasure, so they contract, the parties did not agree to recognize the
filed an action for annulment and/or reformation of the effects of extraordinary inflation (or deflation). The RTC
document. never mentioned that there was such stipulation either
in the promissory note or loan agreement. The general
The group did not pay the interest due on February 9,
rule is that the basis of payment will be the value of the
2001 as well as the amount due on July 9, 2001. So
currency at the date of the maturity of the obligation.
Equitable then set-off their deposits with the interest
The exception is when under Article 1250, there is
and principal due them.
extraordinary inflation or deflation in which the basis of
The RTC ruled that the group should pay their the payment will be the value of the currency at the
obligations based on the date they contracted the making of the obligation.
obligation (which was in 1996) instead of on the date of
Since there was no deflation, they should pay at the
maturity since there was extraordinary deflation.
dollar exchange rate on the day of maturity.
However, it also ruled that the business reputation of
the group was severely damaged when Equitable froze Note: Extraordinary inflation exists when there is an
their accounts so it awarded moral and exemplary unusual decrease in the purchasing power of currency
damages to them. (that is, beyond the common fluctuation in the value of
currency) and such decrease could not be reasonably
foreseen or was manifestly beyond the contemplation of
the parties at the time of the obligation. Extraordinary could also not be awarded attorneys fees and litigation
deflation, on the other hand, involves an inverse expenses.)
situation
Issue2: Can a depositor claim moral and exemplary d.) Attorneys Fees
damages when the bank set-off his deposits with his
JOSE V. LAGON vs. HOOVEN COMALCO
obligations because he failed to pay them?
INDUSTRIES, INC
Ruling: No. The elements for a grant of moral damages
are:
FACTS:Sometime in April 1981 Lagon, a businessman
a) that he or she suffered besmirched reputation, or and HOOVEN entered into two (2) contracts,
denominated Proposal, whereby for a total
physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by
consideration of P104,870.00 HOOVEN agreed to sell
the claimant; and install various aluminum materials in Lagons
commercial building in Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat.
b) that the defendant committed a wrongful act or
HOOVEN filed an action against Lagon claiming that the
omission latter failed to pay his due despite HOOVENs
performance of its obligation. Lagon, in his answer,
c)that the wrongful act or omission was the proximate
denied liability and averred that HOOVEN was the party
cause of the damages the claimant sustained guilty of breach of contract by failing to deliver and
install some of the materials specified in the proposals;
d) The case is predicated on any of the instances in
that as a consequence he was compelled to procure the
Articles 2219 and 2220. undelivered materials from other sources; that as
regards the materials duly delivered and installed by
In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral
HOOVEN, they were fully paid.
damages are recoverable only if the defendant acted in ISSUE:Who among the parties is entitled to damages?
fraudulently or in bad faith or in wanton disregard of his RULING:HOOVEN's bad faith lies not so much on its
contractual obligations. In this case, it was only right for breach of contract - as there was no showing that its
Equitable to set-off the deposits with their debt since failure to comply with its part of the bargain was
they have a creditor-debtor relationship. Thus, any motivated by ill will or done with fraudulent intent - but
rather on its appalling temerity to sue petitioner for
damage suffered by the group was purely the
payment of an alleged unpaid balance of the purchase
consequence of their failure to pay the loan. Since they price notwithstanding knowledge of its failure to make
were not entitled to moral damages, they were also not complete delivery and installation of all the materials
entitled to exemplary damages. (And since they were under their contracts. Although petitioner was found to
not entitled to both moral and exemplary damages, they be liable to respondent to the extent of P6,377.66,
petitioner's right to withhold full payment of the
purchase price prior to the delivery and installation of all for the award must be stated in the text of the courts
the merchandise cannot be denied since under the decision. Award of attorneys fess is the exception rather
contracts the balance of the purchase price became due than the rule, hence it is necessary for the trial court to
and demandable only upon the completion of the make findings of fact and law, which would bring the
project. Consequently, the resulting social humiliation case within the exception and justify the grant of the
and damage to petitioner's reputation as a respected award. Since the failure of explicitly stating the rationale
businessman in the community, occasioned by the filing for the award, is shall be disallowed.
of this suit provide sufficient grounds for the award of Issue 2: Does State Investment sufficiently proved
P50,000.00 as moral damages. On the part of Lagon, he authenticity of promissory note?
is ordered by the court to pay HOOVEN the amount Ruling: Yes. SCC failed to appear several times on
corresponding to the value of the materials admittedly hearing dates despite notice and was unable to cross-
delivered to him. examine the only witness of State investment. Thus,
SCC cannot claim that the testimony of witness is
hearsay since under ROC, when a party failed to object
SCC Chemicals vs State Investment (2001) to a hearsay evidence, the same is admissible.
Furthermore, SCC cannot claim that State Investment
Facts:SCC Chemicals Corporation (SCC) obtained a loan needs to present the original documents because SCC
from State Investment House In. (State Investment) already admitted during pre-trial of the existence and
amounting to P129,824.48. The chairman and vice execution of the promissory note and receipt of the
president of SCC executed a Comprehensive Surety demand letter. It is now too late to question the
Agreement (similar to promissory note) binding authenticity of the presented documents.
themselves to pay the obligation on maturity date. SCC
failed to pay when it matured. State Investment sent e.) Temperate damages
demand letters but no payment was made.
State Investment filed a case for recovery of
money. SCC contended that the promissory note was BPI INVESTMENT CORP. vs. D.G. CARREON
null and void for lack of consideration. Trial court ruled COMMERCIAL CORP.
in favor of State Investment. CA affirmed.
Note: There are two issues in this case. First on Facts:BPI Investment Corporation was engaged in
the topic of attorneys fees and the other the substantial money market operations. D. G. Commercial
issue (for recit purposes ang 2 nd issue in case maam will
Corporation was a client of petitioner and started its
ask)
Issue 1: Does the award by CA of attorneys fees money market placements in September, 1978. BPI
proper? Investments paid D. G. Carreon twice in interest of the
Ruling:No. SCC contended that CA sustained RTC award amount of P323,518.22, representing a single money
of attorneys fees even if RTC did not state the reason market placement, the first on December 12, 1979, and
for the award. Citing Radio Communications vs the second on December 17, 1979. According to
Rodriguez, when attorneys fees are awarded, the reason petitioner, their bookkeeper made an error in posting
12-17 on the sales order slip for 12-12. BPI Investments Moral Damages of a)P1,000,000.00 to the late Daniel G.
claimed that the same placement was also booked as Carreon or his estate represented by Aurora J. Carreon;
maturing on December 12, 1979. Aurora Carreon b)P1,000,000.00 to Aurora J. Carreon; P500,000.00 to
instructed BPI Investments to roll over the whole the late Josefa M. Jeceil or her estate represented by
amount of P323,518.22 for another thirty days, or up to Aurora J. Carreon; Compensatory Damages of
January 11, 1980, at 19% interest. BPI Investments P1,500,000.00 to D. G. Carreon Commercial
claimed that roll overs were subsequently made from Corporation; Exemplary Damages ofP1,000,000.00 to all
maturing payments on which BPI Investments had made defendants; Attorneys Fees of P500,000.00 to all
over payments at a total amount of P410,937.09. defendants.
BPI Investments wrote respondents Daniel ISSUE: Whether or not BPI is guilty of gross negligence
Carreon and Aurora Carreon, demanding the return of in the handling of momey market placement and the
the overpayment of P410,937.09. The respondents award for dames was proper?
asserted that there was no overpayment and asked for
HELD: No.Gross negligence implies a want or absence
time to look for the papers. Upon the request of BPI
of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the
Investments, the spouses Daniel and Aurora Carreon
entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless
sent to BPI Investments a proposed memorandum of
disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to
agreement. Howver, BPI Investments, without
avoid them. However, while petitioner BPI Investments
responding to the memorandum and proposal of D. G.
may not be guilty of gross negligence, it failed to prove
Carreon filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
by clear and convincing evidence that D. G. Carreon
Branch 36, Makati, a complaint for recovery of a sum of
indeed received money in excess of what was due them.
money against D. G. Carreon with preliminary
The alleged payments in the complaint were admitted
attachment. The trial court issued an order for
by plaintiff itself to be withdrawals from validly issued
preliminary attachment after submission of affidavit of
commercial papers, duly verified and signed by at least
merit to support the petition, and the posting of a bond
two authorized high-ranking officers of BPI Investments.
in the amount of P200,000.00. Susequently, the trial
Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or
court lifted the writ of attachment. BPI Investments
correction for the public good, in addition to moral,
moved for reconsideration, but the trial court denied the
temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. They
motion after finding the absence of double payment to
are recoverable in criminal cases as part of the civil
the defendants.
liability when the crime was committed with one or
Both parties appealed to the CA. After due
more aggravating circumstances; in quasi-delicts, if the
proceedings, the CA promulgated a decision ordering
defendant acted with gross negligence; and in
plaintiff BPI to pay the following amounts of damages:
contracts and quasi-contracts, if the defendant acted in
a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or Facts: On March 22, 1985, private respondent Antonio
malevolent manner. BPI Investments did not act in a Palao sold to petitioner Alfonso Iringan, an undivided
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent portion of lot at the Poblacion of Tuguegarao and
manner, when it asked for preliminary attachment. It covered by Transfer Certificate of Title. The parties
was just exercising a legal option. The sheriff of the executed a Deed of Sale on the same date with the
issuing court did the execution and the purchase price of P295,000.00, payable as follows:
attachment. Hence, BPI Investments is not to be blamed P10,000.00 - upon the execution of the instrument;
for the excessive and wrongful attachment. P140,000.00 - on or before April 30, 1985; and
The award of moral damages and attorneys fees is also P145,000.00 - on or before December 31, 1985. When
not in keeping with existing jurisprudence. Moral the second payment was due, Iringan paid only
damages may be awarded in a breach of contract when P40,000. Thus, on July 18, 1985, Palao sent a letter to
the defendant acted in bad faith, or was guilty of gross Iringan stating that he considered the contract as
negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton rescinded. On August 20, 1985, Iringan through his
disregard of his contractual obligation. counsel Atty. Hilarion L. Aquino, replied that they were
There is no doubt, however, that the damages sustained not opposing the revocation of the Deed of Sale but
by respondents were due to petitioners fault or asked for the reimbursement of P50,000.00 - cash paid
negligence, short of gross negligence. Temperate or P3,200.00 - geodetic engineer's fee; P500.00 -
moderate damages may be recovered when the court attorney's fee; and the current interest. Palao stated in a
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its letter that he was not amenable to the reimbursements.
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved After correspondence through letters, the parties still
with certainty. The Court deems it prudent to award failed to arrive at an agreement. Palao filed a Complaint
reasonable temperate damages to respondents under for Judicial Confirmation of Rescission of Contract and
the circumstances. Damages against Iringan and his wife. RTC ruled in
favor of Palao and affirmed the rescission of the contract
and ordering, among others, to pay P50,000.00 as moral
damages; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
MORAL DAMAGES P50,000.00 as attorney's fee; and to pay the costs of
suit.CA affirmed the above decision.
ALFONSO L. IRINGAN vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
and ANTONIO PALAO, represented by his ISSUE: Is the award of moral and exemplary damages
Attorney-in-Fact, FELISA P. DELOS SANTOS proper?
HELD: Yes.
Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals erred in moral and exemplary damages proper. Petition is
finding bad faith on his part when he resisted the denied.
rescissionand claimed he was ready to pay but never
actually paid respondent, notwithstanding that he knew
that appellee's principal motivation for selling the lot CITY TRUST VS VILLANUEVA
was to raise money to pay his SSS loan. Petitioner would
FACTS:Isagani Villanueva filed a complaint for damages
have us reverse the said CA findings based on the based on breach of contract and/or quasi-delict before
exception that these findings were made on a the Regional Trial Court of Makati City against City Trust
misapprehension of facts. Banking Corporation. Villanueva alleged in his complaint
that the bank breached its contractual obligation to him
The records do not support petitioner's claims. First, per as a depositor because of its repeated dishonor of his
the records, petitioner knew respondent's reason for valid and well-funded check. The breach arose from the
selling his property. As testified to by petitionerand in bank's gross negligence and culpable recklessness in
supplying the wrong account number. The account
the deposition of respondent, such fact was made
number assigned to Villanueva's new checkbook was
known to petitioner during their negotiations as well as the account number of another depositor also named
in the letters sent to petitioner by Palao. Second, "Isagani Villanueva," but with a different middle initial.
petitioner adamantly refused to formally execute an Villanueva, therefore, prayed for the award of actual,
instrument showing their mutual agreement to rescind moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees,
the contract of sale, notwithstanding that it was litigation expenses and costs of the suit. The bank
petitioner who plainly breached the terms of their asserted, among others, that Villanueva's negligence to
remember his current account number was the
contract when he did not pay the stipulated price on
proximate cause of his self-proclaimed injury. It claimed
time, leaving private respondent desperate to find other that it acted in good faith when it twice dishonored the
sources of funds to payoff his loan. Lastly, petitioner did check and interposed counterclaims. After due
not substantiate by clear and convincing proof, his proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision which
allegation that he was ready and willing to pay dismissed the complaint and the compulsory
respondent. We are more inclined to believe his claim of counterclaim for lack of merit. The trial court held that
Villanueva's negligence set the chain of events, which
readiness to pay was an afterthought intended to evade
resulted in his alleged losses and damages. Hence, he
the consequence of his breach. There is no record to must bear the consequent damages and losses he
show the existence of such amount, which could have allegedly suffered. With respect to Villanueva's claim for
been reflected, at the very least, in a bank account in actual damages in the form of loss of profits, the court
his name, if indeed one existed; or, alternatively, the found the evidence in support thereof hearsay,
proper deposit made in court which could serve as a unreliable and not the best evidence. On appeal, the
formal tender of payment. Thus, SC finds the award of Court of Appeals found the bank negligent and awarded
moral damages and attorney's fees to Villanueva
despite its findings that the bank's negligence was not the trial court have ascertained that VILLANUEVA was
attended with malice and bad faith. The appellate court, unable to prove his demand for compensatory damages
however, rejected Villanueva's claim for compensatory arising from loss. His evidence thereon was found
damages and affirmed the trial court's finding thereon. inadequate, uncorroborated, speculative, hearsay and
Both Villanueva and the bank appealed to the Supreme not the best evidence. Basic is the jurisprudential
Court by way of a petition for review. principle that in determining actual damages, the court
cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations,
ISSUE: conjectures or guesswork but must depend on
Whether or not Villanueva suffered actual or competent proof and on the best obtainable evidence of
compensatory damages in the form of loss of profits the actual amount of the loss. Actual damages cannot
be presumed but must be duly proved with reasonable
RULING: certainty.
Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court have 2. ID.; ID.; MORAL DAMAGES; REQUISITES FOR AWARD
ascertained that Villanueva was unable to prove his THEREOF. Moral damages include physical suffering,
demand for compensatory damages arising from loss. mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
The unanimity of the factual ascertainment on this point reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
by the trial court and the Court of Appeals barred Court humiliation, and similar injury. Although incapable of
from supplanting their finding and substituting it with pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
their own assessment. recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission. Thus, case law
The Court deleted the award of moral damages since establishes the requisites for the award of moral
Villanueva failed to support his claim. None of the damages, viz: (1) there must be an injury, whether
circumstances mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by
Code exists to sanction the award for moral damages. the claimant; (2) there must be a culpable act or
Anent the award of attorney's fees, the Court deleted omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or
the same. Attorney's fees may not be awarded where omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the
there is no sufficient showing of bad faith in the parties' injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of
persistence of a case other than an erroneous damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in
conviction of the righteousness of his cause. Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Accordingly, the Court reinstated the judgment of the 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JUSTIFICATION FOR AWARD, NOT
trial court. PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. It is beyond cavil that
VILLANUEVA had sufficient funds for the check. Had his
FOR RECIT LANG PO account number been correct, the check would not have
1. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; ACTUAL DAMAGES; CANNOT BE been dishonored. Hence, we can say that VILLANUEVA's
PRESUMED BUT MUST BE PROVED WITH REASONABLE injury arose from the dishonor of his well-funded check.
CERTAINTY. The issue of whether VILLANUEVA We have already ruled that the dishonor of the check
suffered actual or compensatory damages in the form of does not entitle him to compensatory damages. But,
loss of profits is factual. Both the Court of Appeals and could the dishonor result in his alleged "intolerable
physical inconvenience and discomfort, extreme of a case other than an erroneous conviction of the
humiliation, indignities, etc. which he had borne before righteousness of his cause.
his peers, trading partners and officers of Kingly
Commodities?" True, we find that under the
circumstances of this case, VILLANUEVA might have
suffered some form of inconvenience and discomfort as Filipinas Broadcasting Network vs. Ago Medical
a result of the dishonor of his check. However, the same and Educational Center
could not have been so grave or intolerable as he
attempts to portray or impress upon us. Further, it is
clear from the records that the BANK was able to Facts: "Expos" is a radio documentary program
remedy the caveat of Kingly Commodities to aired every morning over DZRC-AM which is owned by
VILLANUEVA that his trading account would be closed at Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. ("FBNI"). It is heard
5:30 p.m. on 26 June 1986. The BANK was able to issue over Legazpi City, the Albay municipalities and other
a manager's check in favor of Kingly Commodities Bicol areas. In the morning of December 14 and 15,
before the deadline. It was able to likewise explain to 1989, the hosts of the program exposed various alleged
Kingly Commodities the circumstances surrounding the complaints from students, teachers and parents against
unfortunate situation. Verily, the alleged Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian
embarrassment or inconvenience caused to College of Medicine ("AMEC") and its administrators. The
VILLANUEVA as a result of the incident was timely and alleged complaint include issues like requiring students
adequately contained, corrected, mitigated, if not to take and pay for the subject even if the subject does
entirely eradicated. VILLANUEVA, thus, failed to support not have an instructor and that AMEC is a dumping
his claim for moral damages. In short, none of the ground for moral and physically misfit people. Claiming
circumstances mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil that the broadcasts were defamatory, AMEC and
Code exists to sanction the award for moral damages. Angelita Ago ("Ago"), as Dean of AMECs College of
4. ID.; ID.; ATTORNEY'S FEES NOT AWARDED ABSENT Medicine, filed a complaint for damages against FBNI
BAD FAITH. The award of attorney's fees should including the hosts. The complaint further alleged that
likewise be deleted. The general rule is that attorney's AMEC is a reputable learning institution and with the
fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because supposed expos, FBNI and the hosts transmitted
of the policy that no premium should be placed on the malicious imputations, and as such, destroyed AMECs
right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time and Agos reputation. AMEC and Ago included FBNI as
a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award defendant for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence
attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code in the selection and supervision of its employees,
demands factual, legal and equitable justification. Even particularly the hosts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third trial courts decision, making FBNI and the hosts liable
persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still for libel. In holding FBNI liable for libel, the lower court
attorney's fees may not be awarded where there is no found that FBNI failed to exercise diligence in the
sufficient showing of bad faith in the parties' persistence selection and supervision of its employees.
Issues: 1: Whether or not the broadcasts are libelous ways of showing diligence in the supervision of
2: Whether or not AMEC is entitled to moral broadcasters.
damages
2 AMEC is entitled to moral damages. A juridical person
Ruling: is generally not entitled to moral damages because,
unlike a natural person, it cannot experience
1 The broadcasts are libelous. Every defamatory physical suffering or such sentiments as
imputation is presumed malicious. The hosts failed to wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or
show adequately their good intention and justifiable moral shock. The Court of Appeals cites Mambulao
motive in airing the supposed gripes of the students. Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of moral
As hosts of a documentary or public affairs program, damages. However, the Courts statement in
they should have presented the public issues Mambulao that a corporation may have a good
free from inaccurate and misleading information. reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a
Hearing the students alleged complaints a month ground for the award of moral damages is an obiter
before the expos, they had sufficient time to verify dictum or only a judge's incidental expression of
their sources and information. However, they hardly opinion. Nevertheless, AMECs claim for moral
made a thorough investigation of the students damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the
alleged gripes. Had the comments been an Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes the
expression of opinion based on established facts, it is recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander
immaterial that the opinion happens to be or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does
mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or
inferred from the facts. However, the comments of juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as
said hosts were not backed up by facts. Therefore, a corporation can validly complain for libel or any
the broadcasts are not privileged and remain libelous other form of defamation and claim for moral
per se. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence on damages.
record that FBNI exercised due diligence in
the selection and supervision of its employees, FBNI MERALCO vs. TEAM ELECTRONICS
did not show how it exercised diligence in supervising (see previous case)
its broadcasters. FBNIs alleged constant reminder to
its broadcasters to "observe truth, fairness and Exemplary damages (Refer to previous cases)
objectivity and to refrain from using libelous and BPI Investment vs DG Carreon
indecent language" is not enough to prove due Producers Bank vs. Chua
diligence in the supervision of its broadcasters.
Adequate training of the broadcasters on the Nominal Damages
industrys code of conduct, sufficient information on Pedrosa v Rodriguez
libel laws, and continuous evaluation of the
broadcasters performance are but a few of the many Facts: Spouses Miguel and Rosalina de Rodriguez
adopted Maria Elena Rodriguez Pedrosa. Years later,
Miguel died intestate. Private respondents filed an Loreto Jocelyn Pedrosa is hearsay and has no probative
action to annul the adoption of Maria Elena. The RTC value. It is settled in jurisprudence that damages may
upheld the validity of the adoption. While the case is not be awarded on the basis of hearsay
pending on appeal in the Court of Appeals, the
evidence. Nonetheless, the failure of the petitioner to
Rodriguezes entered into a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Partition with respondent Rosalina for substantiate her claims for damages does not mean
the partition of the estate of Miguel and of another that she will be totally deprived of any damages. Under
sister, Pilar. Rosalina acted as the representative of the the law, nominal damages are awarded, so that a
heirs of Miguel Rodriguez. New TCTs under the name of plaintiffs right, which has been invaded or violated by
the respondents were subsequently issued. Maria Elena defendants may be vindicated and recognized.
then sent her daughter to claim their share of the
properties from the Rodriguezes. The latter refused Considering that (1) technically, petitioner sustained
saying that Maria Elena and Loreto were not heirs since injury but which, unfortunately, was not adequately and
they were not their blood relatives. Maria Elena filed a properly proved, (2) petitioner was unlawfully deprived
complaint to annul the partition. of her legal participation in the partition of the estate of
Miguel, her adoptive father, (3) respondents had
Issue: Can Elena Rodriguez claim for nominal transferred portions of the properties involved to third
damages? parties, and (4) this case has dragged on for more than
a decade, we find it reasonable to grant in petitioners
Ruling: YES. Petitioner asks for the award of favor nominal damages in recognition of the existence
damages. No receipts, agreements or any other of a technical injury. The amount to be awarded as such
documentary evidence was presented to justify such damages should at least commensurate to the injury
claim for damages. Actual damages, to be recoverable, sustained by the petitioner considering the concept and
must be proved with a reasonable degree of purpose of said damages. Such award is given in view of
certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, the peculiar circumstances cited and the special reasons
extant in this case. Thus, the grant of ONE HUNDRED
conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and
THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS to petitioner as
amount of damages. The same is true for moral damages is proper in view of the technical injury she
damages. These cannot be awarded in the absence of has suffered.
any factual basis. The unsubstantiated testimony of