Public Estates Authority v.

Rosario Ganac-Chu
G.R. No. 145291
21 September 2005

Facts: Rosario Ganac-Chu filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of an
injunction & TRO in the Imus RTC against the National Housing Authority. Ganac-Chu alleged
that she owned a 70,410-sqm parcel of land in Dasmarias, Cavite. Such was entered into and
bulldozed by petitioner Public Estates Authority without notice and due process. Her black
pepper plantation was destroyed, depriving her of her means of livelihood.

PEA filed it answer alleging lack of cause of action. It claimed that PEA and NHA undertook to
relocate squatters in the Financial Center of Manila Bay to the Paliparan site. Respondent
claimed that PEA encroached on her property but never proved ownership thereof. Further,
PEA alleges that respondent already sold 65,410 sqm out of the parcel to Renato Ignacio.

In a partial decision, the RTC found PEA and NHA solidarily liable to pay respondent actual and
compensatory damages (P2,000,000), attorneys fees and costs of suit (P100,000). The CA
sustained the partial judgment of the RTC.

Issue: W/N there is a valid basis for the P2,000,000 in damages and P100,000 in attorneys
fees awarded NO

Held: The CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC that Ganac-Chu that bought 3,000
pepper seedlings at P350 each. Adding the labor cost, water system and pesticides, she should
be compensated P1,300,000 for the plot of land destroyed. Further, the trees were about to be
harvested, thus she lost an estimated income of P700,000.

While Ganac-Chu is entitled to damages, the cause of action is not premised on a contract,
quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict. It is only anchored on the abuse of right principle. PEA was
aware of the existence of the pepper trees. Even if the area did belong to PEA, they should not
have bulldozed it summarily. The exercise of ones rights is not without limitations. Having the
right should not be confused with the manner by which such right is to be exercised.

However, the SC does not believe that P2,000,000 for actual damages and P100,000 for
attorneys fees is justified. The evidence on record is insufficient to justify it. A court cannot rely
on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork to arrive at the actual amount of damages.

Actual damages can only be claimed for duly proven pecuniary loss, not only for the loss itself
but also for lost profits. There is no record that Ganac-Chu suffered actual damages in the
amount of P2,000,000. No receipts were shown, only photographs and bare testimony.

In lieu of actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P250,000 were awarded in
order to alleviate the pecuniary loss even if it cannot be certainly proven. The attorneys fees
and costs of suit are reduced because Respondent only prayed for P80,000 and not P100,000.