Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26400)
Factual Background
The petitioner is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu City as shown on Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18060, and no annotation in favor of the government appears on the certificate. Without prior expropriation proceedings or a negotiated sale, a portion of the lot measuring 6,167 square meters was used by the government for the construction and widening of Mango and Gorordo Avenues. The avenues predated the construction works; they were described as existing in 1921 but in poor condition before the tracing and formal construction in the mid-1920s.
Trial Court Proceedings
The petitioner submitted a claim for compensation to the Office of the President and the Auditor General after administrative attempts to obtain payment failed; the Auditor General disallowed the claim by indorsement dated December 9, 1958. The petitioner instituted an action in the court a quo on February 6, 1959, later amended April 17, 1959, seeking recovery of ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters, compensatory damages in the sum of P50,000.00, moral damages of P25,000.00, attorney’s fees of P5,000.00, and costs. The defendants answered within the reglementary period, denied material allegations and asserted affirmative defenses alleging prematurity for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, prescription of monetary claims, lack of the government’s consent to suit for certain damages, and that the province of Cebu had performed the appropriation. The defendants failed to appear at trial, and the trial court received the petitioner’s evidence ex parte.
Trial Court Judgment and Immediate Aftermath
On July 29, 1959 the court a quo dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court held that the government could not be sued without its consent and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner's claim for recovery of possession or for money claims against the government, including the compensatory and moral damages claimed. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and she appealed.
Issues on Appeal
The controlling issue certified to the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner could properly maintain an action against the government under the facts alleged, particularly where a portion of her titled land had been taken and used for public road purposes without prior expropriation or negotiated sale and without any annotation of governmental interest appearing on her certificate of title.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that, as the registered owner of the whole lot and having no deed of conveyance or governmental annotation on her title, she remained the owner of the portion used for road purposes and therefore was entitled to compensation and damages for the taking. The defendants maintained that the action was premature because administrative remedies had not been exhausted, that the claim for monetary relief had prescribed, that the government had not consented to suit for the claimed damages, and that the appropriation had in fact been made by the province of Cebu, thereby negating liability on the part of the named defendants.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Court set aside the judgment of the court a quo and remanded the case for determination of compensation, attorney’s fees, and interest. The Court held that where the government took property for public use without complying with the statutory procedure of expropriation or negotiating a sale, the aggrieved owner may maintain a suit against the government and the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot be invoked to defeat the owner's constitutional right to just compensation.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
Relying on the Court’s recent precedent in Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, G.R. No. L-31635, August 31, 1971 (40 SCRA 464), the Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate to pay just compensation for property taken for public use compels judicial adjudication when the government fails to follow proper procedures. The Court reasoned that it would be unjust to allow the government to benefit from its own failure to abide by legal requisites. The petitioner’s registered title and lack of any governmental annotation or deed of conveyance established her continued ownership and right to sue for the taken portion. The appropriate measure of compensation is the market
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-26400)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The plaintiff-appellant was Victoria Amigable.
- The defendants-appellees were Nicolas Cuenca, as Commissioner of Public Highways, and the Republic of the Philippines.
- The action appealed from was Civil Case No. R-5977 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which dismissed the complaint.
- The trial court heard the plaintiff's evidence ex parte because no counsel appeared for the defendants despite due notice.
- The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and subsequently certified to the Supreme Court on the ground that no question of fact was involved.
Key Factual Allegations
- The appellant was the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu City as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18060, which superseded Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3272 (T-3435) issued on February 1, 1924.
- No annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property appeared at the back of the certificate of title.
- A portion of the lot measuring 6,167 square meters was used by the government for the construction of Mango and Gorordo Avenues without prior expropriation or negotiated sale.
- The avenues were already existing in 1921, tracing began in 1924, and formal construction was begun in 1925.
- On March 27, 1958 the appellant's counsel wrote the President requesting payment for the appropriated portion, and the Auditor General disallowed the claim by indorsement dated December 9, 1958, with a copy transmitted to appellant's counsel on January 7, 1959.
- The appellant filed a complaint on February 6, 1959 and an amended complaint on April 17, 1959 seeking recovery of ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters, compensatory damages of P50,000.00, moral damages of P25,000.00, attorney's fees of P5,000.00, and costs.
- The defendants filed an answer pleading denial and the affirmative defenses of prematurity for failure to file with the Auditor General, prescription, lack of consent to be sued for money claims against the government, and the contention that the province of Cebu, not the respondents, appropriated the area.
Issues Presented
- The principal issue was whether the appellant could properly sue the government for the taking and use of her land without prior expropriation or negotiated sale.
- Ancill