DAMAGES

1. 1170. 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.

G.R. No. 142938

We now proceed to the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to damages. The RTC held
that he is entitled to moral damages (P50,000), exemplary damages (P30,000) and
attorney's fees (P20,000) because he was not aware that the documents were falsified
and he was merely instructed by respondent Artemio to have them registered. The CA
shared the finding of the RTC that it was respondent Artemio who masterminded the
preparation and use of the spurious documents.[39] Nevertheless, it did not find petitioner
an innocent victim who was merely dragged into litigation: In the natural course of things
and in the ordinary experience of man, the conclusion is inevitable that [he] knew [about]
the spurious nature of said documents but he made use of them because of the benefit
which he would derive therefrom. In short, [petitioner] confabulated with [respondent
Artemio] in defrauding all their co-heirs of their shares in said property.

We agree. Petitioner was not in good faith when he registered the fake

documents.

Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting

"honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances
which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain
from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through
technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or
benefit or belief of facts which render the transaction unconscientious."

Moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to compensate the
plaintiff for the injuries he may have suffered.

G.R. No. 204369

Nevertheless, we find an award for nominal damages to be in order. Under prevailing

jurisprudence, nominal damages are "recoverable where a legal right is technically
violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present
loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury
or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown." 31 As expounded in Almeda
v. Cario,32 a violation of the plaintiffs right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support
an award of nominal damages. So long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of
the plaintiff, as herein petitioner, an award of nominal damages is proper.33