Scribd
Upload
238 views1 page

Amigable Vs Cuenca

Victoria Amigable owned a lot that the government used to construct roads without providing compensation. Amigable sued the government and the Commissioner of Highways for recovery of the land and damages. The court ruled that Amigable could properly sue the government, as the doctrine of immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against a citizen. As the registered owner, Amigable could bring an action to recover possession of the land. The government should provide due compensation based on the land value at the time it was taken.

Uploaded by

Mitch Roldan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
238 views1 page

Amigable Vs Cuenca

Victoria Amigable owned a lot that the government used to construct roads without providing compensation. Amigable sued the government and the Commissioner of Highways for recovery of the land and damages. The court ruled that Amigable could properly sue the government, as the doctrine of immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against a citizen. As the registered owner, Amigable could bring an action to recover possession of the land. The government should provide due compensation based on the land value at the time it was taken.

Uploaded by

Mitch Roldan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Roldan, Mitch L.

JD – 1
Llb111 – Constitutional Law 1 – 7003

Subject: Constitutional Law 1


Topic: State Immunity - Expropriation
Title: AMIGABLE vs. CUENCA
Citation: 43 SCRA 360 G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972

Facts:
Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in
Cebu City. The Transfer Certificate has no annotation in favor of the government
of any right or interest in the property appears at the back of the certificate. The
government used a portion of said lot, with an area of 6,167 square meters, for
the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues.

On March 27, 1958 Amigable's counsel wrote a letter to the President, requesting
payment of the portion of her lot which had been appropriated by the government
and was disallowed by the Auditor General on its 9th Indorsement dated
December 9, 1958.

Amigable filed in the court a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines
and Cuenca in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery
of ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters of land traversed by the
Mango and Gorordo Avenues and a payment of compensatory damages.

As to defendants answer to plaintiff-appellant complaint 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/s:
1. Whether the appellant may properly sue the government.

Ruling/s:
Yes. The aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government
without violating the doctrine of immunity from suit. The doctrine of immunity from
suit cannot serve as instrument for perpetratin an injustice to a citizen.

As registered owner, she could bring an action to recover possession of the


portion of land in question at anytime because possession is one of the attributes
of ownership. 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy