Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26400)
Facts:
In Victoria Amigable v. Nicolas Cuenca, the appellant, Victoria Amigable, is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu City under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18060 (superseding T-3272), issued February 1, 1924. Without any prior exercise of eminent domain or negotiated purchase, the Republic of the Philippines, acting through the Commissioner of Public Highways, appropriated 6,167 square meters of her lot for the widening and formal construction (beginning 1924–25) of Mango and Gorordo Avenues, which had existed in a narrower and dilapidated state since 1921. No annotation indicating any governmental interest appeared on her title. On March 27, 1958, Amigable’s counsel asked the President for compensation. The Auditor General disallowed the claim on December 9, 1958, notice of which was received January 7, 1959. On February 6, 1959, she filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (later amended April 17, 1959), seeking reconveyance anCase Digest (G.R. No. L-26400)
Facts:
- Ownership and Title
- Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate, Cebu City.
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18060 superseded TCT No. RT-3272 (T-3435) issued February 1, 1924, with no government annotation recorded.
- Government Appropriation and Judicial Proceedings
- Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a 6,167 sq m portion for Mango and Gorordo Avenues. The roads existed in 1921, tracing began in 1924, and formal construction in 1925.
- On March 27, 1958, Amigable’s counsel requested payment from the President. The Auditor General disallowed the claim on December 9, 1958, and notified counsel on January 7, 1959.
- Amigable filed her complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu on February 6, 1959 (amended April 17, 1959) against the Republic and Commissioner Cuenca for:
- Recovery of ownership and possession of the 6,167 sq m.
- Compensatory damages (₱50,000), moral damages (₱25,000), attorney’s fees (₱5,000), and costs.
- Defendants answered, raising: prematurity (no Auditor General claim), prescription, lack of consent to sue the government for money or moral damages, and that the province (not the national government) performed the appropriation.
- Defendants failed to appear at trial; the court admitted evidence ex parte and, on July 29, 1959, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction due to governmental immunity and prescription.
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, as no facts were disputed.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction and Government Immunity
- Whether a suit against the government may be maintained when it takes private property for public use without following expropriation or negotiated sale.
- Whether governmental immunity bars recovery of compensation and damages absent express consent.
- Proper Relief
- Whether the plaintiff can recover possession or is limited to monetary compensation.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and attorney’s fees in addition to the value of the land.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)