Victoria Amigable vs. Nicolas Cuenca and Republic of the Philippines

Posted Feb 29, 1972

By Anonymous

5 min read

Case Title and Citation

Victoria Amigable, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Nicolas Cuenca, as Commissioner of Public Highways, and Republic of the Philippines, defendants-appellees.
G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Justice Makalintal

Facts

Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate, Cebu City, as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18060, which superseded Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3272 (T-3435) issued February 1, 1924. No annotation in favor of the government appears on the certificate.
A portion of Amigable’s lot, totaling 6,167 square meters, was used by the government for construction and widening of Mango and Gorordo Avenues. The avenues existed in 1921; tracing began in 1924 and formal construction in 1925.
On March 27, 1958 Amigable’s counsel wrote the President requesting payment for the appropriated portion. The Auditor General disallowed the claim by indorsement dated December 9, 1958; a copy was transmitted to counsel on January 7, 1959.
Amigable filed a complaint February 6, 1959 (amended April 17, 1959) against the Republic and the Commissioner of Public Highways to recover ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters and for P50,000 compensatory damages, P25,000 moral damages, P5,000 attorney’s fees, and costs.
Defendants answered within the reglementary period denying material allegations and pleaded, among others, governmental immunity, prematurity for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, prescription, and that the province of Cebu was responsible for the appropriation.
Defendants failed to appear at trial; the trial court received plaintiff’s evidence ex parte and on July 29, 1959 dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction to sue the government for recovery and money claims, and held the moral damages claim prescribed.
The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, there being no question of fact.

Issues

May the appellant properly sue the government for recovery of ownership and possession of land taken for public use without prior expropriation or negotiated sale?
Is restoration of possession a feasible or appropriate relief where the land in question has been used as public road for many years?
Is the appellant entitled to compensation measured by the value of the land at the time of taking and to legal interest from the time of taking until payment?
Is the appellant entitled to attorney’s fees against the government under these circumstances?
Is the appellant entitled to moral damages against the government?

Ruling

Yes - The owner may sue the government when property has been taken for public use without observance of expropriation or negotiated sale.
No - Restoration of possession is not feasible where the land is in continuous public road use; compensation is the proper remedy.
Yes - Compensation is to be based on the value of the land at the time of the taking, with legal interest from that time until payment.
Yes - Attorney’s fees are recoverable and the amount should be fixed by the trial court after hearing.
No - Moral damages were not sustained by the Court in this decision.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Court relied on its prior decision in Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu (G.R. No. L-31635) holding that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot bar an action when the government has taken property for public use without following the constitutionally and statutorily required procedures for expropriation or negotiated sale. Invocation of immunity would unjustly benefit the government for its failure to comply with the law.
The constitutional mandate requiring that an owner be compensated for property taken for public use means the government, by taking property, submits to the jurisdiction necessary to adjudicate and fix just compensation.
Because no annotation in favor of the government and no deed of conveyance existed, appellant remained the owner; possession is an attribute of ownership and entitles the owner to seek judicial relief.
Restoration of possession was held impracticable because the land has long been used as part of public roads; therefore the appropriate relief is monetary compensation.
For valuation, the Court applied the rule that compensation should be measured by the price or value of the land at the time of the taking (citing Alfonso v. City of Pasay). Legal interest on the price from the time of taking is part of damages (also citing Alfonso).
Attorney’s fees were held recoverable under the circumstances; the exact amount was remanded to the trial court for determination after hearing.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Governmental immunity from suit does not bar a private owner’s action for just compensation where the government has appropriated private property for public use without following expropriation or negotiated sale procedures.
Registered title without governmental annotation establishes continued ownership; absence of a conveyance preserves the owner’s remedies.
Where physical restoration is impracticable due to public use, the remedy is monetary compensation based on value at the time of taking.
Legal interest from time of taking until payment is part of the recovery for an uncompensated taking.
Attorney’s fees may be awarded against the government in appropriate cases and the amount is to be fixed after hearing.

Disposition

The decision of the Court of First Instance dismissing the complaint is set aside.
The case is remanded to the court a quo for determination of just compensation for the 6,167 square meters, including legal interest from the time of taking, and for the fixing of attorney’s fees.
No pronouncement as to costs.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

None stated.

Significance / Notes

Confirms that failure of the government to observe expropriation or negotiated sale procedures does not shield it from suit; aggrieved owners may invoke judicial jurisdiction to obtain just compensation.
Establishes valuation principle for uncompensated takings: value at time of taking, plus legal interest from that time until payment.
Recognizes practical limits of restoration of possession when property has been integrated into public infrastructure; compensation is the appropriate remedy.
Affirms awardability of attorney’s fees against the government in such cases, subject to trial court determination.
Follows and applies the Court’s prior holding in Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu and authorities on valuation (Alfonso v. City of Pasay).

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.