Case Summary (G.R. No. 206484)
Initial Demand and Filing of Accion Publiciana
Upon discovering the encroachment, the Abecinas demanded vacatur and payment of ₱1,200,000 in damages. When DOTC and Digitel refused, the spouses lodged an accion publiciana on September 3, 2003, seeking recovery of possession and damages. DOTC answered, asserting state immunity and ownership, then conceded ownership but relied on immunity.
RTC Ruling on Ownership, Immunity, and Damages
The RTC rejected state-immunity as a shield for unjust deprivation, citing Ministerio v. CFI and Amigable v. Cuenca. It held the Abecinas’ right to possess their land was violated by unauthorized entry and construction. The court ordered DOTC to vacate, forfeited improvements as built in bad faith, and awarded ₱1,200,000 actual, ₱200,000 moral, and ₱200,000 exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
Court of Appeals’ Affirmation with Modification
On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld jurisdiction over large-value accion publiciana cases and ruled DOTC waived immunity by entering a proprietary lease with Digitel. It affirmed actual and moral damages but deleted exemplary damages, agreeing state immunity cannot defeat just compensation for an unlawful taking.
Contentions Before the Supreme Court
DOTC argued that its lease served a sovereign function and did not waive immunity, and that any taking was an exercise of eminent domain subject to expropriation proceedings and remand for just compensation (citing Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO). The respondents maintained immunity cannot perpetuate injustice, that DOTC was a bad-faith builder, and that their action differed from Pidacan in seeking reconveyance.
Analysis of State Immunity and Waiver
Under the 1987 Constitution, no suit lies against the State absent consent. However, immunity extends only to sovereign (jure imperii) acts; commercial or proprietary (jure gestionis) acts imply waiver. Moreover, the constitutional guarantees of due process and just compensation require that an unlawful taking without expropriation cannot stand. By occupying private land without expropriation, DOTC necessarily waived immunity.
Necessity of Reconveyance Versus Expropriation
Although the telephone exchange serves a public purpose, the Abecinas voluntarily entered a lease with Digitel. As long as the parties honor that lease, there
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206484)
Antecedents
- Respondents Vicente and Maria Cleofe Abecina are registered owners of five parcels of land in Sitio Paltik, Barrio Sta. Rosa, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, covered by TCT Nos. T-25094 to T-25098.
- In February 1993, DOTC awarded Digitel Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. a contract under the National Telephone Program, Phase I, Tranche 1, later formalized as Facilities Management Agreements and converted into Financial Lease Agreements in 1995.
- The municipality of Jose Panganiban donated a 1,200 sqm parcel to DOTC for the RTDP, erroneously including portions of the Abecinas’ titled land.
- Pursuant to the FLAs, Digitel constructed a telephone exchange that encroached on the Abecinas’ properties.
Facts
- In the mid-1990s, the Abecinas discovered Digitel’s occupation and demanded vacatur and damages; both DOTC and Digitel refused.
- On April 29, 2003, the Abecinas sent a final demand for P1,200,000.00 unpaid rent/damages; no compliance ensued.
- On September 3, 2003, they filed an accion publiciana (Civil Case No. 7355) against DOTC and Digitel for recovery of possession and damages.
- DOTC initially pleaded immunity from suit and asserted ownership, but later admitted the Abecinas’ title and rested solely on state immunity.
- A Compromise Agreement between Digitel and the Abecinas, along with a lease, was approved by the RTC in March 2007.
- On May 20, 2009, the RTC rendered judgment against DOTC: rejected immunity, ordered vacatur, forfeiture of improvements, and awarded P1,200,000.00 actual damages, P200,000.00 moral damages, P200,000.00 exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
Procedural History
- DOTC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 93795), raising:
- Lack of jurisdiction due to state immunity;
- Mootness after the compromise agreement;
- Error in awarding various damages.
- On