AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA [43 SCRA 360; G.R. No.

L-26400; 29
Feb. 1972]
Saturday, January 31, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes 
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a particular lot. At the

back of her Transfer Certificate of Title (1924), there was no annotation
in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property. Without
prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of the
lot for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. On 1958,
Amigable’s counsel wrote the President of the Philippines, requesting
payment of the portion of the said lot. It was disallowed by
the Auditor General in his 9thEndorsement. Petitioner then filed in the court
a quo a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines and Nicolas
Cuenca, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery
of ownership and possession of the lot. According to the defendants, the
action was premature because it was not filed first at the Office of
theAuditor General. According to them, the right of action for the recovery of
any amount had already prescribed, that the Government had not given its
consent to be sued, and that plaintiff had no cause of action against
the defendants.

Issue: Whether or Not, under the facts of the case, appellant may

properly sue the government.

Held: In the case of Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, it was

held that when the government takes away property from a private
landowner for public use without going through the legal process
of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly
maintain a suit against the government without violating the doctrine
of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. In the case at bar,
since no annotation in favor of the government appears at the back of
the certificate of title and plaintiff has not executed any deed of conveyance
of any portion of the lot to the government, then she remains the owner of
the lot. She could then bring an action to recover possession of the land
anytime, because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. However,
since such action is not feasible at this time since the lot has been used for
other purposes, the only relief left is for the government to make due
compensation—price or value of the lot at the time of the taking.