DOTC v. Spouses Abecina

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS vs.
SPOUSES ABECINA
G.R. No. 206484
June 29, 2016
BRION, J.:
DOCTRINE: State immunity from suit; Doctrine of state immunity cannot serve as an instrument
for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen.
FACTS: Respondent spouses Abecina are the registered owners of five parcels of land,
covered by different Transfer Certificates of Title, in Sitio Paltik, Barrio Sta. Rosa, Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte. In 1993, the DOTC awarded Digitel a contract for the
management, operation, maintenance, and development of a Regional Telecommunications
Development Project (RTDP) under the National Telephone Program, Phase I, Tranche
1 (NTPI-1). The municipality of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, donated a one thousand
two hundred (1,200) square-meter parcel of land to the DOTC and erroneously included
portions of the respondents’ property in the donation. Pursuant to the agreements, Digitel
constructed a telephone exchange on the property which encroached on the properties of the
respondent spouses. Spouses Abecina discovered Digitel’s occupation over portions of their
properties and sent demand letters to both the DOTC and Digitel to vacate the premises and to
pay unpaid rent/damages but it remained unheeded. In 2003, the respondent spouses filed
an accion publiciana complaint against the DOTC and Digitel for recovery of possession and
damages. In its answer, the DOTC claimed immunity from suit and ownership over the subject
properties although admitting that the Abecinas were the rightful owners of the properties. RTC
rendered its decision against the DOTC to which CA affirmed. The CA upheld the RTC’s
jurisdiction over cases for accion publiciana where the assessed value exceeds ₱20,000.00
ISSUE: Whether or not the DOTC’s claim of state immunity from suit shall prosper
RULING: NO. The State may not be sued without its consent. This fundamental doctrine stems
from the principle that there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on
which the right depends. But as the principle itself implies, the doctrine of state immunity is not
absolute. The State may waive its cloak of immunity and the waiver may be made expressly or
by implication. Over the years, the State’s participation in economic and commercial activities
gradually expanded beyond its sovereign function as regulator and governor.1âwphi1The
evolution of the State’s activities and degree of participation in commerce demanded a parallel
evolution in the traditional rule of state immunity. Thus, it became necessary to distinguish
between the State’s sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and its private, commercial,
and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). Presently, state immunity restrictively extends only to
acts jure imperii while acts jure gestionis are considered as a waiver of immunity.
The Philippines recognizes the vital role of information and communication in nation building. To
this end, the DOTC has been mandated with the promotion, development, and regulation of
dependable and coordinated networks of communication. We have no doubt that when the
DOTC constructed the encroaching structures and subsequently entered into agreements with
Digitel for their maintenance, it was carrying out a sovereign function. Therefore, we agree with
the DOTC’s contention that these are acts jure imperii that fall within the cloak of state
immunity.
However, as the respondents repeatedly pointed out, this Court has long established in long line
of cases that the doctrine of state immunity cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an
injustice to a citizen. The Constitution identifies the limitations to the awesome and near-
limitless powers of the State. Chief among these limitations are the principles that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and that private property
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. These limitations are enshrined in
no less than the Bill of Rights that guarantees the citizen protection from abuse by the State.
Consequently, our laws require that the State’s power of eminent domain shall be exercised
through expropriation proceedings in court. Whenever private property is taken for public use, it
becomes the ministerial duty of the concerned office or agency to initiate expropriation
proceedings. By necessary implication, the filing of a complaint for expropriation is a waiver of
State immunity.
If the DOTC had correctly followed the regular procedure upon discovering that it had
encroached on the respondents’ property, it would have initiated expropriation proceedings
instead of insisting on its immunity from suit. The petitioners would not have had to resort to
filing its complaint for reconveyance. We hold, therefore, that the Department’s entry into and
taking of possession of the respondents’ property amounted to an implied waiver of its
governmental immunity from suit.

DOTC v. Spouses Abecina

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOTC v. Spouses Abecina

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS vs.

You might also like