G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972
VICTORIA AMIGABLE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NICOLAS CUENCA, as Commissioner of Public Highways and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a lot in Cebu City, with her title containing no annotation of any government interest. Without prior expropriation proceedings or a negotiated sale, the government used a portion of her land, measuring 6,167 square meters, for the construction and widening of Mango and Gorordo Avenues. The construction activities began formally in 1925. Decades later, in 1958, Amigable formally demanded compensation from the government. After the Auditor General disallowed her claim, she filed a complaint in 1959 for recovery of ownership and possession, plus various damages.
The defendants raised defenses including sovereign immunity from suit, prescription of the action, and prematurity of the claim for not being filed first with the Auditor General. The trial court dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that the suit was against the state without its consent. It also held it lacked jurisdiction over the money claims. Amigable appealed, and the case was eventually certified to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether Amigable can properly maintain a suit against the government for the taking of her property without expropriation proceedings, notwithstanding the doctrine of state immunity from suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and ruled for Amigable. The Court held that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot be invoked to perpetrate an injustice. When the government takes private property for public use without initiating the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, it effectively waives its immunity. The constitutional mandate of just compensation for property taken for public use requires that the aggrieved owner be allowed to sue to enforce this right. The government, by taking the property conditioned on paying compensation, submits itself to court jurisdiction for the judicial determination of that compensation.
The Court clarified that Amigable remained the owner of the land, as her title was unencumbered. While the recovery of physical possession was no longer feasible since the land had been used as a public road, her remedy was to receive just compensation. The basis for compensation is the fair market value of the property at the time of its taking. Furthermore, she is entitled to legal interest on this amount from the time of taking until actual payment, as a form of damages for the delay. The government is also liable for attorney’s fees. The case was remanded to the trial court for the determination of the exact compensation and attorney’s fees.