This is an  appeal from  a judgment of the Court of First Instance of  the Province of Albay,  Hon, Grant T.  Trent presiding, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P2,042.42, and costs.

On or about the 20th day of April, 1902, the appellant, by a written instrument, duly  executed, ratified the sale to the plaintiff  of  a  certain  house and  parcel of land  which had been tentatively made on the 6th  day of October, 1898. By said  writing  the vendor warranted  the title  to said premises and agreed to protect the purchaser in his possession.  Later the plaintiff was dispossessed of a part of said land by virtue of a  final judgment in an action prosecuted against him by Mariano Perfecto.   The appellant in this case was  duly  notified of the pendency of said action and, while he did not intervene as a suitor, he urged the plaintiff in this case to defend the action and prosecute an appeal from the  judgment  rendered  by the  trial court.

On this appeal the appellant presents the following assignment of errors:

1. The  court erred in fixing P650 as the value of that portion of the land lost by the plaintiff.

As to this alleged error, it appears that the  plaintiff lost about two-thirds or three-quarters of the  land purchased from the appellant.  The appellant, in his testimony, placed the value of such portion at about P700.   A witness for the plaintiff testified that the value thereof was about P600. The  learned trial court found the correct value to be P650. There is no evidence whatever in the record contradicting the evidence upon which this  finding was made.

2. The  court erred in assessing as damages against the appellant  the sum of P325, fees of stenographers and an interpreter  who served  on the  trial by interpreting and transcribing the record of the action  in which was entered the judgment depriving  plaintiff in this case of a portion of his land.
   

The appellant urges that these expenses do  not fall within any of the provisions of article 1478  of the Civil Code and therefore ought not to have been allowed by the trial court. It is not necessary to determine whether this contention is sound or not.   It appears uncontradicted in the record that the translation and transcription of the  record and the payment of P325 therefor was made at the  request of the appellant  and on his promise to reimburse the plaintiff. In fact, it appears that the appellant induced the plaintiff to take the  appeal on which  said record was to be used. From  these facts it is  clear that the allowance of  P325 was proper.

3. The court erred in  including in its judgment the sum of P70, being expenses of travel, etc., incurred  by the plaintiff in the action which caused the Joss of his land.

The appellant asserts that such expenses are not a part of the costs as defined in the Civil Code, article 1478, and in sections 487 to 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   In this the appellant  is partly right.  Section 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:

"SEC. 492.  Costs  in  Courts of First  Instance. - In an action pending in  a Court of First Instance, the prevailing party may recover the following costs, and no others:

"For the complaint or answer, eight pesos.

"For his own attendance, and that of  his lawyer, down to and including final judgment, twenty pesos.

"For each witness necessarily produced by him, for each day's necessary attendance of such witness at the trial, one peso, and his  lawful traveling fees.

"For each deposition lawfully taken by him, and produced in evidence, five pesos.

"For original documents, deeds, or papers of any kind produced by him, nothing.

"For official copies of  such  documents,  deeds, or papers, the lawful fees necessarily paid for obtaining such copies.

"The lawful fees paid by him for the service of any process in the action, and all lawful clerk's fees paid by him."

From these  provisions  it is clear that the prevailing party is entitled to  only ¥*20 for  the attendance of himself and lawyer.  No  provision is made  for expenses of travel or other expenses of that nature.  Bad faith  in  making the sale to the plaintiff not having been shown, these expenses can not be allowed as damages under paragraph 5 of article 1478  aforesaid. The contention of the appellant  should, therefore, be allowed, at least to  the extent of P50.  But inasmuch as we shall later allow the other P20 as lawyer's fees, we now disallow the said sum of P70 included by the learned trial court in the judgment appealed from.

4. The court erred in including in the judgment the sum of P850 as lawyer's fees in the said action in which plaintiff lost said part of his property.
   

We are of the opinion that the appellant is partly right in this contention.  As we  have  already seen from section 492 of the  Code of  Civil Procedure, quoted above, the only allowance for lawyer's fees to the  prevailing party in an action in the  Court of  First Instance is the sum of P20. Section 489 of that Code provides as follows:

"SEC. 489. Lawyer's  fees  as  costs. - No lawyer's  fees shall be taxed as costs against  the  adverse party, except as herein  specially  provided.  But  this section  shall have no relation to  the fees to be charged by a lawyer as against his client."

Section 494 reads in part:

"Sec. 494. Costs  in Supreme Court. - In an action pending in the Supreme  Court, the prevailing party may recover the following costs,  and no others:

"For his own attendance, and that of his lawyers, down to and including  final judgment, forty pesos."

This  court  has repeatedly held that the word "costs," as used in the law, includes no lawyer's fees except those fees specifically prescribed therein.   Therefore, the only sums to which the plaintiff is entitled as lawyer's fees are P20 in the Court of First Instance and P40 on appeal. It follows that the learned trial court should have included in his judgment the sum of P60 as lawyer's fees instead of P850.

These are the only modifications which are required by the facts of record.

With the modification that the judgment against the appellant  is  the sum  of P1,182.42  instead of P2,042.42, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without special finding as to costs of appeal.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa,  and Carson, JJ., concur.