Amigable V Cuenca
Amigable V Cuenca
CUENCA
Citation: 43 SCRA 360
Facts:
Victoria Amigable, the appellant herein, is the registered owner of Lot
No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu City as shown by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T18060, which superseded Transfer Certificate of
Title No. RT3272 (T 3435) issued to her by the Register of Deeds of
Cebu on February 1, 1924. No annotation in favor of the government of
any right or interest in the property appears at the back of the
certificate. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the
government used a portion of said lot, with an area of 6,167 square
meters, for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues.
On March 27, 1958 Amigable's counsel wrote the President of the
Philippines, requesting payment of the portion of her lot which had
been appropriated by the government. The claim was indorsed to the
Auditor General, who disallowed it in his 9th Indorsement dated
December 9, 1958. A copy of said indorsement was transmitted to
Amigable's counsel by the Office of the President on January 7, 1959.
On February 6, 1959 Amigable filed in the court a quo a complaint,
which was later amended on April 17, 1959 upon motion of the
defendants, against the Republic of the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca,
in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery of
ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters of land
traversed by the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. She also sought the
payment of compensatory damages in the sum of P50,000.00 for the
illegal occupation of her land, moral damages in the sum of
P25,000.00, attorney's fees in the sum of P5,000.00 and the costs of
the suit.
During the scheduled hearings nobody appeared for the defendants
notwithstanding due notice, so the trial court proceeded to receive the
plaintiff's evidence ex parte. On July 29, 1959 said court rendered its
decision holding that it had no jurisdiction over the plaintiff's cause of
action for the recovery of possession and ownership of the portion of
her lot in question on the ground that the government cannot be sued
without its consent; that it had neither original nor appellate
jurisdiction to hear, try and decide plaintiff's claim for compensatory
damages in the sum of P50,000.00, the same being a money claim
against the government; and that the claim for moral damages had
long prescribed, nor did it have jurisdiction over said claim because the
government had not given its consent to be sued. Accordingly, the
complaint was dismissed. Unable to secure a reconsideration, the
plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which subsequently certified
the case to Us, there being no question of fact involved.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the appellant may properly sue the government
under the facts of the case?
Rulings: