GR 31635; (August, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31635 August 31, 1971
ANGEL MINISTERIO and ASUNCION SADAYA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, Fourth Branch, Presided by the Honorable, Judge JOSE C. BORROMEO, THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, and THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Angel Ministerio and Asuncion Sadaya filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking just compensation for their registered lot, which the National Government had taken possession of and used for widening Gorordo Avenue in 1927 without any condemnation proceedings or payment. They alleged repeated demands for payment or return of possession, which were refused. The parties stipulated that the government took and still possesses the land for public use as part of the avenue and has not paid for it. The lower court dismissed the suit, ruling it was effectively against the state, which had not consented to be sued, as the defendants—the Public Highway Commissioner and Auditor General—were sued in their official capacities.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners can sue the Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General for just compensation for property taken for public use without violating the doctrine of state immunity from suit.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal. The Court explained that while the government is generally immune from suit without consent, this doctrine is not a bar when a public official’s act is unconstitutional or beyond statutory authority. The taking of private property for public use without just compensation or without initiating expropriation proceedings is a violation of the constitutional mandate. In such a case, the official acts ultra vires. The suit against the officials is not considered a suit against the state because the government, in taking property without compensation, is not acting within its sovereign capacity but is exercising a power that requires due process and payment. The Court held that to deny the suit would cause grave injustice and contravene the constitutional guarantee of just compensation. Therefore, petitioners could properly sue the officials to compel payment for the land taken, as the action was not to impose personal liability but to enforce a constitutional duty. The decision emphasized that the doctrine of state immunity cannot shield the government from its obligation to pay just compensation for property expropriated for public use.