Case Digest G.R. No. L-26400

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superseded Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3272 (T-3435) issued to her by the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.

Case Digest G.R. No. L-26400

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest G.R. No. L-26400

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

Case Digest G.R. No. L-26400

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson:

Waiver of Immunity: Consent to be Sued

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

Title: Amigable v. Cuenca

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

Petitioner: VICTORIA AMIGABLE

 Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of

 . The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The constitutional mandate is that the private owner must be

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

You might also like