What are the damages recoverable in ejectment case?


● The damages recoverable in a case of forcible entry and unlawful detainer are those corresponding to the sum justly due as  (1) arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises,  (2) attorney's fees and  (3) costs.

Section 17, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:
 SEC. 17. Judgment. If after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorneys fees and costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true, it shall render judgment for the defendant to recover his costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires.
● Since the only issue in actions for forcible entry and detainer is physical possession, the damages which plaintiff is entitled to are such as a he may have sustained as mere possessor. Material possession involves only the enjoyment of the thing possessed, its use in the collection of its fruits, and these are the only benefits which the possessor is deprived of in losing his possession. In other words, plaintiff is entitled only to those damages which are caused by his loss of the use of the occupation of the property, and not to such damages as are caused to the land or building during the unlawful possession, which he may recover only if he were the owner of the property, and he cannot be declared as such in an action for forcible entry and detainer. Damages to property may be recovered only by the owner in an ordinary action. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to the annual yield of the palm existing on the land taken by the defendant, but not to the value of the palm trees cut down. In other words, the damages which may be claimed in an action for forcible entry, is the damage equivalent to reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises by the trespasser. Vasquez vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-2100, May 30, 1951; Dy vs. Kuizon, G.R. No. L-16654. November 30, 1961.

● There is no basis for the MTC to award actual, moral, and exemplary damages in view of the settled rule that in ejectment cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. Dumo vs. Espinas, G.R. No. 141962, January 25, 2006

● Since temperate damages are neither "rents" nor "reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises," nor "fair rental value", we are constrained to deny the temperate damages. Reyes vs. CA, G.R. No. L-28466, March 27, 1971

● The trial court held defendant liable 'to pay plaintiff the sum of P25.00 a day for every day of delay as damages until he finally vacates the premises, in addition to the agreed current rental that may accrue.' This is an error. The damages recoverable by the plaintiff under Section 1, Ride 70 (formerly Rule 72) are those which correspond to the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property, which in this case is the agreed monthly rental of P230.00. The award, therefore, of P25.00 as damages for every day of delay in addition to the agreed monthly rentals is without basis in law. Ramirez vs. Sy Chit, G.R. No. L-22022, December 26, 1967


May a defendant in an action for ejectment set up a counterclaim for moral damages and may the same be awarded?


●It is the plaintiff-appellant's contention that moral damages may not properly be awarded in ejectment cases, the only recoverable damages therein being the reasonable compensation for use and occupancy of the premises and the legal measure of damages being the fair rental value of the property.

Plaintiff-appellant loses sight of the fact that the money judgment was awarded the defendant-appellee in the concept of a counterclaim. A defending party may set up a claim for money or any other relief which he may have against the opposing party in a counterclaim (Section 6, Rule 6, Revised Rules of Court). And the court may, if warranted, grant actual, moral, or exemplary damages as prayed for. The grant of moral damages, in the case at bar, as a counterclaim, and not as damages for the unlawful detention of property must be upheld. Agustin vs. Bacalan, G.R. No. L-46000 March 18, 1985


Can a complainant in a forcible entry case file an independent action for damages arising after the act of dispossession had occurred?


● Yes. The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases thus refer to rents or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises or fair rental value of the property and attorneys fees and costs. Considering that the only issue raised in ejectment is that of rightful possession, damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession. Other damages must thus be claimed in an ordinary action. CGR Corporation vs. Treyes, G.R. No. 170916, April 27, 2007