You are on page 1of 5

the decision of the trial court by 86 settlers,

alleging that they had been in possession of the


Republic vs land for more than 20 years under claim of
ownership. The trial court ordered the settlers
Feliciano to present their evidence but they did not
appear at the day of presentation of evidence.
Feliciano, on the other hand, presented
doctrine of non-suability of additional evidence. Thereafter, the case was
submitted for decision and the trial court ruled
in favor of Feliciano.
the State
The settlers immediately filed a motion for
REPUBLIC VS FELICIANO reconsideration. The case was reopened to
allow them to present their evidence. But
G.R. No. 70853 148 SCRA 424 March 12,
before this motion was acted upon, Feliciano
1987
filed a motion for execution with the Appellate
REPUBLIC OF THE Court but it was denied.
PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee,
PABLO FELICIANO and
The settlers filed a motion to dismiss on the
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
ground that the Republic of the Philippines
COURT, respondents-appellants
cannot be sued without its consent and hence
the action cannot prosper. The motion was
opposed by Feliciano.

Facts: Issue/s:

The appeal was filed by 86 settlers of Barrio of Whether or not the state can be sued for
Salvacion, representing the Republic of the recovery and possession of a parcel of land.
Philippines to dismiss the complaint filed by
Feliciano, on the ground that the Republic of
the Philippines cannot be sued without its
consent.
Discussions:
A suit against the State, under settled
Prior to this appeal, respondent Pablo jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a
Feliciano filed a complaint with the Court of showing that the State has consented to be
First Instance against the Republic of the sued, either expressly or by implication
Philippines, represented by the Land through the use of statutory language too plain
Authority, for the recovery of ownership and to be misinterpreted. It may be invoked by the
possession of a parcel of land consisting of courts sua sponte at any stage of the
four lots. The trial court rendered a decision proceedings.
declaring Lot No. 1 to be the private property
of Feliciano and the rest of the property, Lots
2, 3 and 4, reverted to the public domain.
Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of
sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly. but
must be construed in strictissimi juris (of
The trial court reopened the case due to the strictest right). Moreover, the Proclamation is
filing of a motion to intervene and to set aside not a legislative act. The consent of the State
to be sued must emanate from statutory
authority. Waiver of State immunity can only Facts:
be made by an act of the legislative body. Respondent Pablo Feliciano filed a
complaint with the Court of First Instance
against the Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Land Authority, for the
recovery of ownership and possession of a
parcel of land.
Ruling/s: The trial court rendered a decision
declaring Lot No. 1 to be the private property
No. The doctrine of non-suability of the State of Feliciano and the rest of the property
has proper application in this case. The reverted to the public domain.
plaintiff has impleaded the Republic of the The trial court reopened the case
Philippines as defendant in an action for due to the filing of a motion to intervene and
recovery of ownership and possession of a to set aside the decision of the trial court by
parcel of land, bringing the State to court just 86 settlers, alleging that they had been in
like any private person who is claimed to be possession of the land for more than 20
usurping a piece of property. A suit for the years under claim of ownership.
recovery of property is not an action in rem, The trial court ordered the settlers to
but an action in personam. It is an action present their evidence but they did not
directed against a specific party or parties, and appear at the day of presentation of
any judgment therein binds only such party or evidence. Feliciano, on the other hand,
parties. The complaint filed by plaintiff, the presented additional evidence. Thereafter,
private respondent herein, is directed against the case was submitted for decision and the
the Republic of the Philippines, represented by trial court ruled in favor of Feliciano.
the Land Authority, a governmental agency The settlers immediately filed a
created by Republic Act No. 3844. motion for reconsideration and then the case
was reopened to allow them to present their
evidence.
The complaint is clearly a suit against the Feliciano filed a petition for certiorari
State, which under settled jurisprudence is not with the Appellate Court but it was denied.
permitted, except upon a showing that the The settlers filed a motion to dismiss
State has consented to be sued, either on the ground that the Republic of the
expressly or by implication through the use of Philippines cannot be sued without its
statutory language too plain to be consent and hence the action cannot
misinterpreted. There is no such showing in prosper. The motion was opposed by
the instant case. Worse, the complaint itself Feliciano.
fails to allege the existence of such consent. Issue:
Whether or not the state can be
sued for recovery and possession of a
parcel of land.

Republic vs. Held:


No

Feliciano (Consti1) Ratio:


A suit against the state is not
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner- permitted, except upon a showing that the
appellee, vs. Pablo Feliciano and state has consented to be sued, either
Intermediate Appellate Court, respondents- expressly or by implication through the use
appellants. of statutory language too plain to be
misinterpreted.
March 12, 1987
The complaint involves land not
Yap, J: owned by the state but private land
belonging to Feliciano, hence the
government is not being divested of any of account were performed by them in
its properties. the discharge of their official
duties. Sanders, as director of the
special services department of
Case Digest: Sanders and NAVSTA, undoubtedly
supervision over its personnel and
had

Moreau, Jr. vs. Veridiano had a hand in their employment,


II work assignments, discipline,
dismissal and other related
10 June 1988 G.R.
matters. The same can be said for
No. L-56930
Moreau. Given the official character
of the above-described letters, it can
FACTS:
be concluded that the petitioners
were being sued as officers of the
Rossi and Wyer were advised that
United States government. There
their employment had been
should be no question by now that
converted from permanent full-time
such complaint cannot prosper
to permanent part-time. Their
unless the government sought to be
reaction was to protest this
held ultimately liable has given its
conversion and to institute grievance
consent to be sued.
proceedings conformably to the
pertinent rules and regulations of the
US DoD. Moreau sent to the Chief of
DALE SANDERS, ET AL. v. HON.
Naval Personnel explaining the
REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, ET AL.
change of employment status of the
162 SCRA 88 | June 10, 1988
two from which Rossi and Wyer filed
in the Court of First Instance of Ponente: Cruz, J.
Olongapo City a complaint for FACTS:
damages against the herein Petitioner Dale Sanders was the special
petitioners claiming that the letters services director of the US Naval Station
contained libellous imputations (NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. Private
against the two. Due to the failure to respondents, Anthony Rossi and Ralph
appear in the court, Moreau and Wyers, are American citizens
Sanders were declared in default. permanently residing in the Philippines
and were employed as game room
ISSUE: attendants in the special services
department of NAVSTA. On October 3,
Whether the petitioners were 1975, the respondents were advised that
performing their official duties when their employment had been converted
they did the acts for which they have from permanent full-time to permanent
been sued for damages. part-time. In a letter addressed to
petitioner Moreau, Sanders disagreed
RULING: with the hearing officers report of the
reinstatement of private respondents to
It is abundantly clear in the present permanent part-time plus back wages.
case that the acts for which the Respondents allege that the letters
petitioners are being called to contained libelous imputations which
caused them to be ridiculed and, thus, Government to the Philippine
filed for damages against petitioners. Government. Wenceslao Tan with nine
ISSUE: others submitted their application in due
form.
Whether the petitioners were performing
their official duties when they did the The area was granted to the petitioner.
acts for which they have been sued for On May 30, 1963, Secretary Gozon of
damages. Agriculture and Natural Resources issued
HELD: a general memorandum order authorizing
It is abundantly clear in the present case Dir. Of Forestry to grant new Ordinary
that the acts for which the petitioners are Timber Licenses (OTL) subject to some
conditions stated therein (not
being called to account were performed
exceeding 3000 hectares for new OTL
by them in the discharge of their official and not exceeding 5000 hectares for
duties. Sanders, as director of the special extension)
services department of NAVSTA,
undoubtedly had supervision over its Thereafter, Acting Secretary of
personnel and had a hand in their Agriculture and Natural Resources
employment, work assignments, Feliciano (replacing Gozon) promulgated
discipline, dismissal and other related on December 19, 1963 a memorandum
revoking the authority delegated to the
matters. The same can be said for Director of Forestry to grant ordinary
Moreau. Given the official character of timber licenses. On the same date, OTL in
the above-described letters, it can be the name of Tan, was signed by then
concluded that the petitioners were being Acting Director of Forestry, without the
sued as officers of the United States approval of the Secretary of Agriculture
government. There should be no and Natural Resources. On January 6,
question by now that such complaint 1964, the license was released by the
Director of Forestry .
cannot prosper unless the government
sought to be held ultimately liable has Ravago Commercial Company wrote a
given its consent to be sued. The private letter to the Secretary of ANR praying that
respondents must pursue their claim the OTL of Tan be revoked. On March 9,
against the petitioners in accordance 1964, The Secretary of ANR declared
with the laws of the Unites States of Tans OTL null and void (but the same
which they are all citizens and under was not granted to Ravago). Petitioner-
appellant moved for a reconsideration of
whose jurisdiction the alleged offenses
the order, but the Secretary of Agriculture
were committed for the Philippine courts and Natural Resources denied the
have no jurisdiction over the case. motion.

ISSUES:
Tan v director of forestry I. Whether or not petitioners timber
FACTS: license is valid (No)
II. Whether or not petitioner had
Sometime in April 1961, the Bureau of exhausted administrative remedies
Forestry issued notice advertising for available (No)
public bidding a certain tract of public
forest land situated in Olongapo,
Zambales consisting of 6,420 hectares,
within the former U.S. Naval ReservationRULING:
comprising 7,252 hectares of timberland,
which was turned over by the US I
Petitioners timber license was signed that the President has the power to review
and released without authority and is on appeal the orders or acts of the
therefore void ab initio. In the first place, respondents, the failure of the petitioner-
in the general memorandum dated May appellant to take that appeal is failure on
30, 1963, the Director of Forestry was his part to exhaust his administrative
authorized to grant a new ordinary timber remedies
license only where the area covered
thereby was not more than 3,000
hectares; the tract of public forest
awarded to the petitioner contained 6,420
hectares In the second place, at the time it
was released to the petitioner, the Acting
Director of Forestry had no more authority
to grant any license. (The license was
released to the petitioner on January 6,
1964 while on the other hand, the
authority of the Director of Forestry to
issue license was revoked on December
19, 1963). In view thereof, the Director of
Forestry had no longer any authority to
release the license on January 6, 1964,
and said license is therefore void ab
initio. What is of greatest importance is the
date of the release or issuance. Before its
release, no right is acquired by the
licensee.

Granting arguendo, that petitioner-


appellant's timber license is valid, still
respondents-appellees can validly revoke
his timber license. "A license is merely a
permit or privilege to do what otherwise
would be unlawful, and is not a contract
between the authority, federal, state, or
municipal, granting it and the person to
whom it is granted; neither is it property or
a property right, nor does it create a
vested right; nor is it taxation

The welfare of the people is the supreme


law. Thus, no franchise or right can be
availed of to defeat the proper exercise of
police power.

II

Petitioner did not exhaust administrative


remedy in this case. He did not appeal the
order of the respondent Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources to the
President of the Philippines. Considering