Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48214)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48214)
Facts:
Ildefonso Santiago v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-48214, December 19, 1978, Second Division, Fernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ildefonso Santiago, by his attorney-in-fact Alfredo T. Santiago, filed on August 9, 1976 a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zamboanga City, Branch II (Civil Case No. 249), naming the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry, as defendant. He sought revocation of a deed of donation dated January 20, 1971 on the ground that the donee (the Bureau) had failed to perform the conditions of the donation — specifically, to install lighting and water systems and to build an office building and parking lot to be ready for occupancy by December 7, 1974.The CFI resolved a defense motion to dismiss and, by order dated October 20, 1977, dismissed the case on the ground that the State may not be sued without its consent, relying on the express provision of Article XV, Section 16 of the Constitution and controlling jurisprudence. The Solicitor General (Estelito P. Mendoza, assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Octavio R. Ramirez and Solicitor Mariano M. Martinez) filed a comment urging affirmance of the dismissal in deference to the constitutional bar.
Petitioner then invoked this Court's jurisdiction by a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of the CFI's order of dismissal and reinstatement of his action for revocation of donation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, finding a distinctive factual situation (a suit to revoke a donation wherein the Republic is donee and is alleged to have failed to observe the donation's conditions) warranting judicial hearing despite the general rule of non‑suability of the State.
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance correctly dismiss the action on the ground that the State may not be sued without its consent (Article XV, Sec. 16, Constitution)?
- If the rule of non‑suability would bar the suit, can consent to suit be implied so as to permit a donor to seek revocation of a donation where the Republic, as donee, allegedly breached the donation's conditions?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)