d2015member
Robes-Francisco Robes-Francisco Realty & Dev’t Corp v. CFI-Rizal CFI-Rizal and Lolita Millan (1978) Munoz Palma, J.
Robes Realty agreed to sell to Millan a parcel of land in Caloocan City. Millan complied with her obligation and paid the installments. She made a total payment, including interests and expenses for registration of title. After which, she made repeated demands for the execution of the final deed of sale and the issuance of the TCT over the lot. The parties executed a deed of absolute sale. The deed had the provision: The seller warrants that the TCT shall be transferred in the name of the buyer within 6 months from full o payment. In case the seller fails to issue the TCT, the seller bears the obligation to refund the total amount already paid, o plus 4% per annum interest. After 6 months, seller corporation failed to cause the issuance of the TCT. So, buyer Millan filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the seller corporation. The complaint prays: Judgment ordering the reformation of the deed of absolute sale; o Judgment ordering the seller corporation to deliver the TCT; or, if not possible, pay buyer Millan the value of the o lot Judgment ordering the seller corp to pay damages, corrective and actual (P15k) o Seller corp answered. They: Want the complaint to be dismissed because the deed of absolute sale was voluntarily executed between them o and the interest of the buyer Millan was protected by the provision of interest at 4% per annum TC awarded nominal damages of P20k.
Issue: Was award of nominal damages proper? Held: Yes. Ratio:
Seller corporation was in delay, amounting to non-performance of obligation to buyer Millan who had fully paid up her instalments. NCC170 provides that those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Unfortunately, the buyer Millan submitted her case without presenting evidence on the actual damages suffered. STILL, the facts show that the right of the buyer MIillan to acquire title was violated by seller corp and this entitles her at the very least to nominal damages. Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.
NATURE OF NOMINAL DAMAGES Under American jurisprudence, nominal damages by their very nature are small sums fixed by the court without regard to the extent of the harm done to the injured party. Fouraker v. Kidd : It is generally held that a nominal damage is a substantial claim, if based upon the violation of a legal right; in such case, the law presumes a damage, although actual or compensatory damages are not proven. Nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact, and are allowed, not as an equivalent of a o wrong inflicted, but simply in r ecogniton of the existence of a technical injury. In Phil jurisdiction, the SC in Medina v. Cresencia eliminated an award of P10k nominal damages, saying that the amount cannot in common sense be deemed "nominal". In a subsequent case (Northwest Airlines v. Cuenca) SC sustained an award of P20k nominal damages, the SC there found special reasons to consider P20k as "nominal." Actually, the Northwest Airlines case ruled that there is no conflict between that case and Medina. In Medina, the P10k nominal damages was eliminated because the aggrieved party had already been awarded o P6k as compensatory damages, P30k as moral damages and P10k as exemplary damages. While in Northwest, no such compensatory, moral, or exemplary damages were granted to the aggrieved party. o Northwest case said "nominal damages cannot coexist with compensatory damages."
PURPOSE OF NOMINAL DAMAGES Based on the preceding articles, nominal damages are not intended for indemnification of loss suffered, but for the vindication or recognition of a right vio lated or invaded.
WHEN NOMINAL DAMAGES RECOVERABLE They are recoverable where some injury has been done the amount of which the evidence f ails to show, the ass essment of damages being left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case. The circumstances of a particular case will determine whether the amount assessed as nominal damages is within the scope or intent of the law (NCC 2221)
d2015member
In this case: P20k is excessive. Seller corp’s corp’s failure to convey a TCT to buyer Millan because the property was mortgaged to GSIS does not in itself show bad faith or fr aud. Bad faith is not to be presumed. Also, there was the expectation of the seller that arrangements were possible for the GSIS to make partial releases of the subdivision lots from the overall mortgage. It was just unfortunate that seller did not succeed in that. o For that reason We cannot agree with respondent Millan Chat the P20,000.00 award may be considered in the nature of exemplary damages. Because of that, P20k is excessive. P10k is fair.
Decision modified. Nominal damages decreased from P20k to P10k.
