Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26400)
Facts:
Victoria Amigable v. Nicolas Cuenca, G.R. No. L-26400. February 29, 1972, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Victoria Amigable, is the registered owner of Lot No. 639, Banilad Estate, Cebu City (Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18060). The defendants are Nicolas Cuenca, as Commissioner of Public Highways, and the Republic of the Philippines. No annotation of any government right or interest appeared on the title, and Amigable did not execute any conveyance of the subject portion.
A portion of Lot No. 639, measuring 6,167 square meters, was used by government authorities for the construction/enlargement of Mango and Gorordo Avenues. The record shows those roads existed in 1921 in a narrower form; tracing began in 1924 and formal construction in 1925. The government did not institute formal expropriation proceedings nor negotiate a sale with Amigable before occupying and improving the portion.
On March 27, 1958 Amigable’s counsel wrote the President requesting payment; the claim was referred to and disallowed by the Auditor General by indorsement dated December 9, 1958, a copy of which was transmitted to counsel on January 7, 1959. On February 6, 1959 (amended April 17, 1959) Amigable filed Civil Case No. R-5977 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu against the Republic and Commissioner Cuenca for recovery of ownership and possession of the 6,167 sqm, compensatory damages of P50,000, moral damages of P25,000, attorney’s fees of P5,000, and costs.
The defendants timely answered, denying material allegations and pleading affirmative defenses: that the action was premature for failure to file the claim first with the Auditor General; that any monetary claim had prescribed; that the Government had not consented to suit for moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs; and that the Province of Cebu (not the national government) had appropriated the area.
At trial the defendants failed to appear despite notice; the CFI nevertheless received appellant’s evidence ex parte. On July 29, 1959 the CFI dismissed the complaint, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the government without it...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the appellant properly sue the national government for the taking and use of a portion of her land where no expropriation or negotiated sale was effected?
- Was the action premature or barred because the claim had not been filed with the Auditor General, or because of prescription?
- If the suit is maintainable, what reliefs is the owner entitled to (possession, compensation, int...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)