GR 71998 99; (June, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-71998-99 June 2, 1993
EMILIANO R. DE LOS SANTOS, SPOUSES NORMA A. PADILLA and ISIDORO L. PADILLA and the HEIRS OF FRANCISCO DAYRIT, petitioners, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. JUDGE CICERRO C. JURADO and EDILBERTO CADIENTE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land in Binangonan, Rizal, registered under TCT No. 329945. In October 1981, without their knowledge or consent, private contractor Edilberto Cadiente and Provincial Engineer Nestor Agustin constructed a road and an artificial creek on their property, occupying a total area of 4,071 square meters. The construction was a project undertaken under the authority of the Minister of Public Works, funded by the National Government. Petitioners filed two consolidated cases in the Court of First Instance: Civil Case No. 46800 (a petition for prohibition with injunction) and Civil Case No. 46801 (an action for damages), alleging the taking was without due process and just compensation. The Solicitor General moved to dismiss both cases, arguing they were suits against the State which had not given its consent. The trial court dismissed the cases. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, ruling the actions could not be maintained as suits against the State and that petitioners’ remedy for just compensation “lies elsewhere.” Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the principle of state immunity from suit bars the petitioners’ suits for prohibition and damages arising from the alleged taking of their private property for public use without expropriation proceedings or payment of just compensation.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, reversed the appellate court’s decision, and remanded the cases to the trial court for trial on the merits. The Court held that the doctrine of state immunity from suit cannot be invoked to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen. Where the government takes private property for public use without initiating expropriation proceedings or paying just compensation, a suit may be maintained against the government. The Court cited Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu and Amigable v. Cuenca, ruling that the government, by taking property conditioned on payment of just compensation, submits to court jurisdiction. The property was registered under the Torrens system, and public officials’ belief it was public land did not justify the taking. The issue of just compensation and the fact of completion of the project are factual matters to be determined in a full trial. The Republic of the Philippines must be impleaded as a defendant in the remanded cases.