G.R. No. L-70853 March 12, 1987
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner-appellee, vs. Pablo Feliciano and Intermediate Appellate Court, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Respondent Pablo Feliciano filed a complaint against the Republic, represented by the Land Authority, for recovery of ownership and possession of a 1,364-hectare parcel of land in Camarines Sur. Feliciano claimed ownership based on a possessory information title (informacion posesoria) from his predecessor-in-interest, alleging the land was his private property wrongfully included within the NARRA settlement reservation established by Presidential Proclamation No. 90. The trial court initially ruled partly in his favor regarding a 701-hectare portion but later reconsidered. After protracted proceedings, including intervention by settlers, the trial court eventually dismissed the complaint in 1980 on the ground of non-suability of the State. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed this dismissal in 1985, ordering further proceedings. The Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint for recovery of ownership and possession against the Republic of the Philippines is barred by the doctrine of state immunity from suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, reversing the Appellate Court and reinstating the trial court’s order of dismissal. The doctrine of non-suability of the State properly applies. Feliciano impleaded the Republic as a defendant in a suit to recover title and possession of land, effectively suing the State as if it were a private usurper of property. This action is not permitted without the State’s consent. The Court clarified that the State’s act of declaring land as part of a public reservation (NARRA) and administering it for settlement purposes is a sovereign, governmental act (jure imperii), not a proprietary or commercial one (jure gestionis). A suit challenging such an act and seeking to divest the State of its administration over the land is a suit against the State itself. Furthermore, the Court noted the dubious nature of the possessory information title, pointing out it was a reconstituted document covering an area vastly exceeding the typical 100-hectare limit for such titles, and that Feliciano had failed to judicially confirm this imperfect title under the Public Land Act. The State did not waive immunity by initially participating in the trial; its invocation of immunity at a later stage was permissible. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.