SANTIAGO V.

REPUBLIC
87 SCRA 294

Facts:
On August 9, 1976, petitioner Ildefonso Santiago represented by his Attorney-in-Fact,
Alfonso T. Santiago filed an action against the respondent Bureau of Plant Industry representing the
Republic of the Philippines for revocation of the deed of donation made by the petitioner and his
wife on January 20, 1971 on the ground that the respondent failed to comply with the terms of
donation.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the case in favor of the respondent on the ground that
the state cannot be sued without its consent, Solicitor General Mendoza affirmed such dismissal.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the state can be sued without its consent.

Ruling:
It is true that the state cannot be sued without its consent under Article XVI, Section 3 of the
Constitution. However, the consent need not be expressed. It can be implied based on the case of
Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit
cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.
That in the present case, Court said that, it must be emphasized, goes no further than to rule
that a donor, with the Republic or any of its agency being the donee, is entitled to go to court in case
of an alleged breach of the conditions of such donation. He has the right to be heard. Under the
circumstances, the fundamental postulate of non-suability cannot stand in the way. It is made to
accommodate itself to the demands of procedural due process, which is the negation of arbitrariness
and inequity. The government, in the final analysis, is the beneficiary. It thereby manifests its
adherence to the highest ethical standards, which can only be ignored at the risk of losing the
confidence of the people, the repository of the sovereign power. The judiciary under this circumstance
has the grave responsibility of living up to the ideal of objectivity and impartiality, the very essence of
the rule of law. Only by displaying the neutrality expected of an arbiter, even if it happens to be one of
the departments of a litigant, can the decision arrived at, whatever it may be, command respect and
be entitled to acceptance.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, the writ of certiorari prayed for was
granted and the order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance was nullified. The Court of First
Instance was directed to proceed with the case, observing the procedure set forth in the Rules of
Court.