AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA [43 SCRA 360; G.R. No. L-26400; 29 Feb.

1972] Saturday, January 31, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Facts: Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a particular lot. At the bac k of her Transfer Certificate of Title (1924), there was no annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property. Without prior exprop riation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of the lot for the con struction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. On 1958, Amigable s counsel wrote the President of the Philippines, requesting payment of the portion of the said lot. It was disallowed by the Auditor General in his 9th Endorsement. Petitioner the n filed in the court a quo a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines a nd Nicolas Cuenca, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the re covery of ownership and possession of the lot. According to the defendants, the action was premature because it was not filed first at the Office of the Auditor General. According to them, the right of action for the recovery of any amount had already prescribed, that the Government had not given its consent to be sued , and that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. Issue: Whether or Not, under the facts of the case, appellant may properly sue t he government. Held: In the case of Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, it was held that when 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 withou t violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. In the case at bar, since no annotation in favor of the government appears at t he back of the certificate of title and plaintiff has not executed any deed of c onveyance of any portion of the lot to the government, then she remains the owne r of the lot. She could then bring an action to recover possession of the land a nytime, because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. However, since such action is not feasible at this time since the lot has been used for other purposes, the only relief left is for the government to make due compensation pric e or value of the lot at the time of the taking.