This case presents the following question: When a judgment  of  the trial court  absolving the  defendant from the complaint without special pronouncement as to costs is reversed by the Court of  Appeals, which renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellant "with costs against the appellee," do the costs so awarded include those in the Court of First Instance?

The facts are briefly as follows:

The plaintiff  sued the defendant in the Court  of First Instance of Cavite to recover the possession of a portion of land.  The  court ordered the government surveyor to make a resurvey of the lot in question with  the understanding that "any expense which said surveyor might  incur to comply with said order  shall be advanced  by the  plaintiff and once the case is finally decided the same shall be taxed as costs  which shall be paid by the  losing party."  Thereafter  the court decided the case by absolving the defendant from  the complaint without any pronouncement as  to costs. The plaintiff appealed to  the Court of Appeals, where he prevailed and obtained a  reversal of  the judgment of the trial court, "with costs against the appellee."

The clerk of the Court of Appeals taxed the costs in  that court at P84.   Upon the return of the record to the trial court the plaintiff filed a bill of costs corresponding to the Court of First Instance and to the Court of Appeals aggregating P314.77.  The defendant objected thereto  and the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Cavite taxed the costs at P224.96,  which included  the  costs of P84 in the Court of Appeals  and the sum of P90 which the plaintiff had  advanced as  expenses for  the resurvey of the land.  The defendant appealed to  the court,  which sustained the taxation made by  the clerk of court.  From that order of the court the defendant appealed to  this Court,  contending that the costs awarded by  the Court  of  Appeals referred only to the costs  in that court.

Section 1 of rule 131 (formerly section 487  of Act No. 190)  provides as  follows:

"Section 1. Costs ordinarily follow results of suit, Unless otherwise provided in these rules, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing partir as a matter of course, but the court shall have power, for special reasons,  to adjudge that either party shall pay the costs of  an action, or that the same be divided, as may be equitable.  No costs shall be allowed against the Commonwealth  of the Philippines unless otherwise provided by law."

Since the plaintiff was the party that finally prevailed, he was entitled to the costs as  a matter of course, unless the court for special reasons adjudged otherwise.  In the instant case, the Court of Appeals not only did not adjudge otherwise but expressly awarded the costs to the plaintiff. "Where *  *  *   the prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of course,  the  words 'with costs' in an order of reversal or affirmance in the court of appeals will be construed  to  mean all costs made  in both the  appellate court and  the court below   *   *  *  "(15 C. J. 260; 20 C. J. S. 590).  In the  absence, therefore, of any qualification,  the costs awarded by the Court of Appeals in the instant case should  be construed to mean the costs of suit from its commencement to its termination.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.  So ordered.

Abad Santos, Diaz, Moran, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.