G.R. No. L-26400
February 29, 1972
Facts
Petitioner is the owner of a land expropriated by the government to build the Gorordo and Mango Avenues in Cebu City. The title of the land is still on the name of the petitioner. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of said lot, with an area of 6,167 square meters, for the construction of the said avenues. He then filed a complaint for recovery of possession and the payment compensatory and moral damages for the illegal occupation of his land. The lower court dismissed the complaint. Hence, this petition.
The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint and interposed the following affirmative defenses, to wit: (1) that the action was premature, the claim not having been filed first with the Office of the Auditor General; (2) that the right of action for the recovery of any amount which might be due the plaintiff, if any, had already prescribed; (3) that the action being a suit against the Government, the claim for moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs had no valid basis since as to these items the Government had not given its consent to be sued; and (4) that inasmuch as it was the province of Cebu that appropriated and used the area involved in the construction of Mango Avenue, plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants.
Issue
Whether or not the plaintiff may sue the government as well as recover just compensation and payment for damages?
Held
Yes.
In Ministerio v. Court of First Instance Cebu, the Supreme Court held that “where the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent.” The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. In other words, eminent domain cases is an exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. Hence, the plaintiff may sue the government since her complaint is an issue of eminent domain.
Moreover, just compensation must be awarded to the petitioner. The land is still a private property owned by petitioner considering that no annotation in favor of the government appears at the back of the certificate of title and that petitioner has not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of her lot to the government. As registered owner, she could bring an action to recover possession of the portion of land in question at any time because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. However, since restoration of possession of said portion by the government is neither convenient nor feasible at this time because it is now and has been used for road purposes, the only relief available is for the government to make due compensation which it could and should have done years ago. To determine the due compensation for the land, the basis should be the price or value thereof at the time of the taking.
As regards the claim for damages, the plaintiff is entitled thereto in the form of legal interest on the price of the land from the time it was taken up to the time that payment is made by the government. In addition, the government should pay for attorney’s fees, the amount of which should be fixed by the trial court after hearing.
Hence, the case is remanded to the lower court for the determination of just compensation.