Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Case Digest G.R. No. L-26400

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Nissa Lopez
    The document discusses the case of Amigable v. Cuenca. It summarizes that: 1) The government used a portion of Victoria Amigable's land to construct roads without expropriation or payment. 2) Amigable sued the government for recovery of the land and damages. The government claimed immunity from lawsuits without consent. 3) The court ruled that while the government has immunity, it does not apply when the constitution is violated, such as taking private property without just compensation. Amigable was entitled to compensation plus interest and attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Case Digest G.R. No. L-26400

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Nissa Lopez
    74 views4 pages
    The document discusses the case of Amigable v. Cuenca. It summarizes that: 1) The government used a portion of Victoria Amigable's land to construct roads without expropriation or payment. 2) Amigable sued the government for recovery of the land and damages. The government claimed immunity from lawsuits without consent. 3) The court ruled that while the government has immunity, it does not apply when the constitution is violated, such as taking private property without just compensation. Amigable was entitled to compensation plus interest and attorney's fees.

    Original Description:

    Consti Law

    Original Title

    Case Digest g.r. No. L-26400

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses the case of Amigable v. Cuenca. It summarizes that: 1) The government used a portion of Victoria Amigable's land to construct roads without expropriation or payment. 2) Amigable sued the government for recovery of the land and damages. The government claimed immunity from lawsuits without consent. 3) The court ruled that while the government has immunity, it does not apply when the constitution is violated, such as taking private property without just compensation. Amigable was entitled to compensation plus interest and attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views4 pages

    Case Digest G.R. No. L-26400

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Nissa Lopez
    The document discusses the case of Amigable v. Cuenca. It summarizes that: 1) The government used a portion of Victoria Amigable's land to construct roads without expropriation or payment. 2) Amigable sued the government for recovery of the land and damages. The government claimed immunity from lawsuits without consent. 3) The court ruled that while the government has immunity, it does not apply when the constitution is violated, such as taking private property without just compensation. Amigable was entitled to compensation plus interest and attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Lesson:

    Waiver of Immunity: Consent to be Sued


    Implied consent: Violation of the Constitution, thereby perpetuating
    injustice: immunity does not apply

    CASE: Amigable v. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972

    Caption:

    Title: Amigable v. Cuenca

    Citation: G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972

    Petitioner: VICTORIA AMIGABLE


    Respondent: NICOLAS CUENCA, as Commissioner of Public Highways and
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
    Ponente: MAKALINTAL, J.

    Facts:

     Victoria Amigable, the petitioner, is 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 to her by the
    Register of Deeds of Cebu on February 1, 1924.

     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 Auditor General in his 9th Indorsement dated December 9, 1958 disallowed such
    claim. And on January 7, 1959, a copy of said indorsement was transmitted to
    Amigable's counsel.

     On February 6, 1959, Amigable filed in the court a quo a complaint, which was later
    amended on April 17, 1959 against the Republic of the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca,
    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.

     The defendants filed a joint answer denying the material allegations of the complaint
    and interposing the following affirmative defenses, to wit:
    o (1) that the action was premature, the claim not having been filed first with the
    Office of the Auditor General;
    o (2) that the right of action for the recovery of any amount which might be due the
    plaintiff, if any, had already prescribed;
    o (3) that the action being a suit against the Government, the claim for moral
    damages, attorney's fees and costs had no valid basis since as to these items the
    Government had not given its consent to be sued; and
    o (4) that in as much as it was the province of Cebu that appropriated and used
    the area involved in the construction of Mango Avenue, plaintiff had no cause
    of action against the defendants.
     On July 29, 1959, the 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…. Subsequently, the complaint was dismissed.

     . The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issues:

    I. Whether or not the State may not be sued without its consent.
    II. Whether or not the petitioner may properly sue the government for
    expropriation without just compensation.

    Ruling:

    I. YES
    Generally, the State may not be sued without its consent.
    However, in cases when it perpetuates injustice and violates
    constitutional mandates, the aggrieved party may properly
    maintain a suit against the government without thereby
    violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit
    without its consent. The doctrine of governmental immunity
    from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an
    injustice on a citizen.

    II. YES:
    The 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article 3,
    Section 2, and the 1943 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,
    Article 7, Section 9 state:

    “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”

    The constitutional mandate is that the private owner must be


    compensated for a private property taken for public use. Hence, when the
    government takes away property from a private owner for public use
    without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale,
    the aggrieved private owner may properly maintain a suit against the
    government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental
    immunity from suit without its consent. Furthermore, when the government
    takes away private property from a private owner, expropriation must comply
    with due process of law.

    Decision:

    Therefore, the petitioner is entitled in the form of legal interest on the


    price of the land from the time it was taken up to the time that payment is
    made by the government. In addition, the government should pay for
    attorney's fees.

    You might also like