FACTS:
This case originated from a Special Proceedings case for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Julio Cantolos, involving six parcels of land in Tanay, Rizal. The lawyer for some of the heirs, Sergio Amonoy, was awarded attorney's fees of P27,600, which was secured by a real estate mortgage on two of the lots. When the attorney's fees were not paid, Amonoy filed for foreclosure. The heirs opposed, claiming that the fees were unconscionable and should only be P11,695.92. However, the court rendered a judgment in favor of Amonoy, ordering the heirs to pay the mortgage and additional fees within 90 days. When the heirs failed to pay, the lots were foreclosed and sold at public auction, with Amonoy being the highest bidder. A deficiency was claimed, and another execution sale was conducted, with Amonoy as the highest bidder again. The lot on which the Gutierrez spouses had their house was included in the properties sold.
More than a year after the judgment in the foreclosure case, the heirs filed a suit for annulment, which was eventually dismissed. Subsequently, a writ of possession was issued, and orders for the demolition of structures on the lots, including the house of the Gutierrez spouses, were issued. The heirs filed a petition before the Supreme Court, which granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the demolition. Eventually, the Supreme Court rendered a decision ordering the return of the disputed land to the petitioners. However, at the time the decision was promulgated, the Gutierrez spouses' house had already been demolished.
As a result, the Gutierrez spouses filed a complaint for damages against Amonoy for the destruction of their house. The complaint was initially dismissed by the RTC, but on appeal, the CA ordered Amonoy to pay the Gutierrez spouses P250,000 as actual damages. Amonoy filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Thus, he filed the present petition for review. The issue raised in the petition was whether Amonoy was liable for damages to the Gutierrez spouses.
ISSUES:
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in deciding that the petitioner was liable to the respondents for damages.
RULING:
- The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals was correct in deciding that the petitioner was liable to the respondents for damages. The Court affirmed the CA's decision ordering the petitioner to pay the respondents P250,000 as actual damages.