G.R. No. 134239 ; May 26, 2005
Reynaldo Villafuerte and Perlita T. Villafuerte, petitioners, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Edilberto De Mesa and Gonzalo Daleon, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Reynaldo and Perlita Villafuerte operated a gasoline station on three adjoining lots in Lucena City. Two of these lots were owned by respondents Edilberto De Mesa and Gonzalo Daleon. The Villafuertes’ lease on De Mesa’s lot expired on December 31, 1989, and they failed to secure a renewal for Daleon’s lot, receiving instead demands to vacate. The petitioners refused to leave both properties. On February 1, 1990, respondents, with the aid of others, fenced off the gasoline station premises without the Villafuertes’ knowledge, effectively closing the business.
The Villafuertes filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The trial court denied the application for injunction, ruling that with the expired leases, the petitioners had no clear right to remain on the property. The Villafuertes amended their complaint to claim over P2.1 million in actual damages for lost income and other business losses allegedly caused by the sudden closure.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents acted lawfully in fencing the property, and whether the petitioners are entitled to the actual damages claimed for their alleged business losses.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that respondents’ act of fencing the property was a valid exercise of their rights as owners. Under Article 429 of the Civil Code, an owner has the right to exclude any person from the property and may use reasonable force to prevent usurpation. The petitioners were mere deforciants (unlawful possessors) after their leases expired and they refused to vacate. The fencing was a reasonable means for the owners to retake possession, especially after judicial and barangay demands to vacate had failed. The respondents’ actions were not attended by malice or bad faith.
Regarding damages, the Court affirmed the deletion of the actual damages awarded by the lower courts. The petitioners failed to prove their alleged losses with the requisite degree of certainty. The claimed lost profits were based on estimates and self-serving testimony, not on competent evidence or documentary proof such as income tax returns or audited financial statements. However, recognizing that some pecuniary loss was suffered by the petitioners due to the sudden closure which prevented them from retrieving their goods, the Supreme Court awarded temperate damages of P50,000.00. This award is justified under Article 2224 of the Civil Code when some loss occurred but its exact amount cannot be proven with certainty. The moral and exemplary damages awarded by the Court of Appeals were deleted due to the absence of proof of malicious intent in the respondents’ lawful actions.