TOPIC: IN PERSONAM v IN REM

G.R. No. 70853 March 12, 1987

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee,
COURT, respondents-appellants.
PONENTE: YAP, J.

vs. PABLO FELICIANO and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE

FACTS:
Pablo Feliciano purchased four (4) parcels of land amounting to an aggregate area of
1,364. 4177 hectares from Victor Gradiola by virtue of a Contract of Sale dated May
31, 1952 followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale on October 30, 1954. [Gradiola bought it from
the heirs of one Francisco Abrazado whose title to the property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria that
upon purchase, Gradiola took actual possession of the land, ntroduced various improvements and caused the land
to be surveyed in 1952 which was approved by the Director of Lands on Oct. 24, 1954]

On November 1, 1954, President Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90 reserving a

tract of land situated in Tinambac and Siruma, Camarines Sur for resettlement
purposes, which was handled by the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Authority (NARRA) succeeded by the Land Authority.
On January 22, 1970, Pablo Feliciano filed a complaint against RP, represented by
the Land Authority for the recovery of ownership and possession of land situated in
Salvacion, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, that the property in question, while located
within the reservation established under Proclamation No. 90, was the private
property of Feliciano and should therefore be excluded therefrom.
On August 29, 1970, the Trial Court rendered a decision declaring Lot 1 to be the
private property of Feliciano and Lots 2,3 and 4 reverted to public domain.
Settlers filed a motion to intervene and set aside previous ruling, alleging that they
have been in possession of the land for almost 20 years. Intervenors also filed a
motion to dismiss on August 31, 1970 on the ground that RP cannot be sued without
its consent.
On January 25, 1971, the Court decide to reopen the case. On August 21, 1980, the
trial court, through Judge Esteban Lising, issued the questioned order dismissing the
case for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent moved for reconsideration, while the Solicitor
General, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines filed its opposition thereto,
maintaining that the dismissal was proper on the ground of non-suability of the State
and also on the ground that the existence and/or authenticity of the purported
possessory information title of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had not been
demonstrated and that at any rate, the same is not evidence of title, or if it is, its
efficacy has been lost by prescription and laches.
DOCTRINE: A suit for recovery of property is not an action in rem, but an action in
personam
ISSUES:
1. WON the State (Republic of the Philippines) can be sued for recovery and possession
of land-NO.
HELD:
1. NO. A suit against the state is not permitted, except upon a showing that the state has
consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory
language too plain to be misinterpreted.
"IN REM" means against a thing (as a right, status, or property)
"IN PERSONAM" means against a person for the purpose of imposing a liability or obligation