Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 248 views

    Digest Republic Vs Feliciano

    Uploaded by

    Zy Aquilizan
    1. The plaintiff filed a case against the Republic of the Philippines for recovery of ownership and possession of a 1,364 hectare parcel of land. 2. The Supreme Court held that a suit for recovery of property is an action in personam, not in rem, and the complaint essentially sued the state. 3. Under jurisprudence, the state cannot be sued without its consent, which was not established in this case. The complaint was thus dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest Republic Vs Feliciano

    Uploaded by

    Zy Aquilizan
    248 views2 pages
    1. The plaintiff filed a case against the Republic of the Philippines for recovery of ownership and possession of a 1,364 hectare parcel of land. 2. The Supreme Court held that a suit for recovery of property is an action in personam, not in rem, and the complaint essentially sued the state. 3. Under jurisprudence, the state cannot be sued without its consent, which was not established in this case. The complaint was thus dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Digest Republic vs Feliciano

    Original Title

    Digest Republic vs Feliciano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The plaintiff filed a case against the Republic of the Philippines for recovery of ownership and possession of a 1,364 hectare parcel of land. 2. The Supreme Court held that a suit for recovery of property is an action in personam, not in rem, and the complaint essentially sued the state. 3. Under jurisprudence, the state cannot be sued without its consent, which was not established in this case. The complaint was thus dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    248 views2 pages

    Digest Republic Vs Feliciano

    Uploaded by

    Zy Aquilizan
    1. The plaintiff filed a case against the Republic of the Philippines for recovery of ownership and possession of a 1,364 hectare parcel of land. 2. The Supreme Court held that a suit for recovery of property is an action in personam, not in rem, and the complaint essentially sued the state. 3. Under jurisprudence, the state cannot be sued without its consent, which was not established in this case. The complaint was thus dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic vs.

    Feliciano
    GR No. 70853
    Mar 12, 1987
    ponente: Yap, J.
    Topic: In Personam vs In Rem
    Facts:
    On January 22, 1970, respondent Feliciano filed a complaint with the then Court
    of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the Republic of the Philippines, represented
    by the Land Authority, for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land,
    consisting of four (4) lots with an aggregate area of 1,364.4177 hectares, situated in the
    Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines Sur.
    Plaintiff alleged that he bought the property in question from Victor Gardiola by
    virtue of a Contract of Sale dated May 31, 1952, followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale on
    October 30, 1954; that Gardiola had acquired the property by purchase from the heirs of
    Francisco Abrazado whose title to the said property was evidenced by an informacion
    posesoria that upon plaintiff's purchase of the property, he took actual possession of the
    same, introduced various improvements therein and caused it to be surveyed in July
    1952, which survey was approved by the Director of Lands on October 24, 1954
    on November 1, 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90
    reserving for settlement purposes, under the administration of the National Resettlement
    and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), a tract of land situated in the Municipalities
    of Tinambac and Siruma, Camarines Sur, after which the NARRA and its successor
    agency, the Land Authority, started sub-dividing and distributing the land to the settlers;
    that the property in question, while located within the reservation established under
    Proclamation No. 90, was the private property of plaintiff and should therefore be
    excluded therefrom.
    Plaintiff prayed that he be declared the rightful and true owner of the property in
    question consisting of 1,364.4177 hectares; that his title of ownership based on
    informacion posesoria of his predecessor-in-interest be declared legal valid and
    subsisting and that defendant be ordered to cancel and nullify all awards to the settlers.
    Issue/s:
    1. WON the state can be sued for the recovery of the parcel of land
    Hold:
    1. No.
    a. The plaintiff has impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as
    defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of
    land, bringing the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to be
    usurping a piece of property. A suit for the recovery of property is not an action in
    rem, but an action in personam.
    b. The complaint is clearly a suit against the State, which under
    settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the State has
    consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of
    statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. There is no such showing in the
    instant case. Worse, the complaint itself fails to allege the existence of such
    consent. This is a fatal defect, and on this basis alone, the complaint should have
    been dismissed.

    Decision:
    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing and setting aside the appealed decision
    of the Intermediate Appellate Court, dated April 30, 1985, and affirming the order of the court a
    quo, dated August 21, 1980, dismissing the complaint filed by respondent Pablo Feliciano
    against the Republic of the Philippines. No costs.
    Relevant terms/concepts:
    In Personam-A court with jurisdiction over a particular location may exercise in
    personam jursidiction over a person who resides, maintains connections, or is served
    notice of legal proceedings in that location. It may also exercise jurisdiction over a
    person who consents to be subject to it.
    In personam judgments can be enforced against the person where she is, while disputes
    over property must take place in its particular location.
    In Rem-power of a court over an item of real or personal property. The "thing"
    over which the court has power may be a piece of land or even a marriage. Thus, a
    court with only in-rem jurisdiction may terminate a marriage or declare who owns a piece
    of land. In-rem jurisdiction is based on the location of the property and enforcement
    follows property rather than person.

    You might also like