Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 97882 August 28, 1996 THE CITY OF ANGELES, Hon. ANTONIO ABAD SANTOS, in his capacity as MAYOR of Angeles City, and the SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF THE CITY OF ANGELES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TIMOG SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:p In resolving this petition, the Court addressed the questions of whether a donor of open spaces in a residential subdivision can validly impose conditions on the said donation; whether the city government as donee can build and operate a drug rehabilitation center on the donated land intended for open space; and whether the said donation may be validly rescinded by the donor. Petitioners claim they have the right to construct and operate a drug rehabilitation center on the donated land in question, contrary to the provisions stated in the amended Deed of Donation. On the other hand, private respondent, owner/developer of the Timog Park residential subdivision in Angeles City, opposed the construction and now, the operation of the said center on the donated land, which is located within said residential subdivision. Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 dated October 31, 1990, which affirmed the decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City Branch 56, 4 dated February 15, 1989. The Antecedents In a Deed of Donation dated March 9, 1984, subsequently superseded by a Deed of Donation dated September 27, 1984, which in turn was superseded by an Amended Deed of Donation dated November 26, 1984, private respondent donated to the City of Angeles, 51 parcels of land situated in Barrio Pampang, City of Angeles, with an aggregate area of 50,676 square meters, more or less, part of a bigger area also belonging to private respondent. The amended deed 5 provided, among others, that: 2. The properties donated shall be devoted and utilized solely for the site of the Angeles City Sports Center (which excludes cockfighting) pursuant to the plans to be submitted within six (6) months by the DONEE to the DONOR for the latter's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld as long as entire properties donated are developed as a Sports Complex. Any change or modification in the basic design or concept of said Sports Center must have the prior written consent of the DONOR. 3. No commercial building, commercial complex, market or any other similar complex, mass or tenament (sic) housing/building(s) shall be constructed in the properties donated nor shall cockfighting, be allowed in the premises. 4. The construction of the Sports Center shall commence within a period of one (1) year from March 9, 1984 and shall be completed within a period of five (5) years from March 9, 1984. xxx xxx xxx 6. The properties donated (which is more than five (5) percent of the total land area of the DONOR's subdivision) shall constitute the entire open space for DONOR's subdivision and all other lands or areas previously reserved or designated, including Lot 1 and Lot 2A of Block 72 and the whole Block 29 are dispensed with, and rendered free, as open spaces, and the DONEE hereby agrees to execute and deliver all necessary consents, approvals, endorsements, and authorizations to effect the foregoing.

7. The properties donated are devoted and described as "open spaces" of the DONOR's subdivision, and to this effect, the DONEE, upon acceptance of this donation, releases the DONOR and/or assumes any and all obligations and liabilities appertaining to the properties donated. 8. Any substantial breach of the foregoing provisos shall entitle the DONOR to revoke or rescind this Deed of Donation, and in such eventuality, the DONEE agrees to vacate and return the premises, together with all improvements, to the DONOR peacefully without necessity of judicial action. On July 19, 1988, petitioners started the construction of a drug rehabilitation center on a portion of the donated land. Upon learning thereof, private respondent protested such action for being violative of the terms and conditions of the amended deed and prejudicial to its interest and to those of its clients and residents. Private respondent also offered another site for the rehabilitation center. However, petitioners ignored the protest, maintaining that the construction was not violative of the terms of the donation. The alternative site was rejected because, according to petitioners, the site was too isolated and had no electric and water facilities. On August 8, 1988, private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, in Angeles City against the petitioners, alleging breach of the conditions imposed in the amended deed of donation and seeking the revocation of the donation and damages, with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order to halt the construction of the said center. On August 10, 1988, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin the petitioners from further proceeding with the construction of the center, which at that time was already 40% complete. However, the trial court denied the prayer for preliminary injunction based on the prohibition in Presidential Decree No. 1818. In their Answer with counterclaim, petitioners admitted the commencement of the construction but alleged inter aliathat the conditions imposed in the amended deed were contrary to Municipal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1962, otherwise known as the Subdivision Ordinance of the Municipality of Angeles. 6 On October 15, 1988, private respondent filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the ground that the main defense of the petitioners was anchored on a pure question of law and that their legal position was untenable. The petitioners opposed, contending that they had a meritorious defense as (1) private respondents had no right to dictate upon petitioners what to do with the donated land and how to do it so long as the purpose remains for public use; and (2) the cause of action of the private respondent became moot and academic when the Angeles City Council repealed the resolution providing for the construction of said drug rehabilitation center and adopted a new resolution changing the purpose and usage of said center to a "sports development and youth center" in order to conform with the sports complex project constructed on the donated land. On February 15, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision, in relevant part reading as follows: . . . the Court finds no inconsistency between the conditions imposed in the Deeds of Donation and the provision of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Angeles requiring subdivisions in Angeles City to reserve at least one (1) hectare in the subdivision as suitable sites known as open spaces for parks, playgrounds, playlots and/or other areas to be rededicated to public use. On the contrary, the condition requiring the defendant city of Angeles to devote and utilize the properties donated to it by the plaintiff for the site of the Angeles City Sports Center conforms with the requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance that the subdivision of the plaintiff shall be provided with a playground or playlot, among others. On the other hand the term "public use'" in the Subdivision Ordinance should not be construed to include a Drug Rehabilitation Center as that would be contrary to the primary purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance requiring the setting aside of a portion known as "Open Space" for park, playground and playlots, since these are intended primarily for the benefit of the residents of the subdivision. While laudable to the general public, a Drug Rehabilitation Center in a subdivision will be a cause of concern and constant worry to its residents. As to the third issue in paragraph (3), the passage of the Ordinance changing the purpose of the building constructed in the donated properties from a Drug Rehabilitation Center to a Sports Center comes too late. It should have been passed upon the demand of the plaintiff to the defendant City of Angeles to stop the construction of the Drug Rehabilitation Center, not after the complaint was filed. Besides, in seeking the revocation of the Amended Deed of Donation, plaintiff also relies on the failure of the defendant City of Angeles to submit the plan of the proposed Sports Center within six (6) months and construction of the same within five years from March 9, 1984, which are substantial violations of the conditions imposed in the Amended Deed of Donation. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (1) Enjoining defendants, its officers, employees and all persons acting on their behalf to perpetually cease and desist from constructing a Drug Rehabilitation Center or any other building or improvement on the Donated Land. (2) Declaring the amended Deed of Donation revoked and rescinded and ordering defendants to peacefully vacate and return the Donated Land to plaintiff, together with all the improvements existing thereon. And, (3) Denying the award of compensatory or actual and exemplary damages including attorney's fees. NO PRONOUNCEMENT AS TO COST. In March 1989, petitioners fried their Notice of Appeal. On April 15, 1989 while the appeal was pending, petitioners inaugurated the Drug Rehabilitation Center. 7 On April 26, 1991, the respondent Court rendered the assailed Decision affirming the ruling of the trial court. Subsequently, the petitioners motion for re-consideration was also denied for lack of merit. Consequently, this Petition for Review. The Issues The key issues 8 raised by petitioners may be restated as follows: I. Whether a subdivision owner/developer is legally bound under Presidential Decree No. 1216 to donate to the city or municipality the "open space" allocated exclusively for parks, playground and recreational use. II. Whether the percentage of the "open space" allocated exclusively for parks, playgrounds and recreational use is to be based on the "gross area" of the subdivision or on the total area reserved for "open space". III. Whether private respondent as subdivision owner/developer may validly impose conditions in the Amended Deed of Donation regarding the use of the "open space" allocated exclusively for parks and playgrounds.. IV. Whether or not the construction of the Drug Rehabilitation Center on the donated "open space" may be enjoined. V. Whether the donation by respondents subdivision owner/developer of the "open space" of its subdivision in favor of petitioner City of Angeles may be revoked for alleged violation of the Amended Deed of Donation. Central to this entire controversy is the question of whether the donation of the open space may be revoked at all. First Issue: Developer Legally Bound to Donate Open Space The law involved in the instant case is Presidential Decree No. 1216, dated October 14, 1977, 9 which reads: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1216 Defining "Open Space" In Residential Subdivisions And Amending Section 31 Of Presidential Decree No. 957 Requiring Subdivision Owners To Provide Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks And Reserve Open Space For Parks Or Recreational Use. WHEREAS, there is a compelling need to create and maintain a healthy environment in human settlements by providing open spaces, roads, alleys and sidewalks as may be deemed suitable to enhance the quality of life of the residents therein; WHEREAS, such open spaces, roads, alleys and sidewalks in residential subdivisions are for public use and are, therefore, beyond the commerce of men; WHEREAS, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 953 at least thirty percent (30%) of the total area of a subdivision must be reserved, developed and maintained as open space for parks and recreational areas, the cost of which will ultimately be borne by the lot buyers which thereby increase the acquisition price of subdivision lots beyond the reach of the common mass;

WHEREAS, thirty percent (30%) required open space can be reduced to a level that will make the subdivision industry viable and the price of residential lots within the means of the low income group at the same time preserve the environmental and ecological balance through rational control of land use and proper design of space and facilities; WHEREAS, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 757, government efforts in housing, including resources, functions and activities to maximize results have been concentrated into one single agency, namely, the National Housing Authority; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree: Sec. 1. For purposes of this Decree, the term "open apace" shall mean an area reserved exclusively for parks, playgrounds, recreational uses, schools, roads, places of worship, hospitals, health centers, barangay centers and other similar facilities and amenities. Sec. 2. Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 31. Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks and Open Spaces The owner as developer of a subdivision shall provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks. For subdivision projects one (1) hectare or more, the owner or developer shall reserve thirty percent (30%) of the gross area for open space. Such open space shall have the following standards allocated exclusively for parks, playgrounds and recreational use: a. 9% of gross area for high density or social housing (66 to 100 family lots per gross hectare). b. 7% of gross area for medium-density or economic housing (21 to 65 family lots per gross hectare). c. 3.5% of gross area for low-density or open market housing (20 family lots and below per gross hectare). These areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and recreational use shall be non-alienable public lands, and non-buildable. The plans of the subdivision project shall include tree planting on such parts of the subdivision as may be designated by the Authority. Upon their completion certified to by the Authority, the roads, alleys, sidewalks and playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local governments to accept provided, however, that the parks and playgrounds maybe donated to the Homeowners Association of the project with the consent of the city or municipality concerned. No portion of the parks and playgrounds donated thereafter shall be converted to any other purpose or purposes. Sec. Sections 2 and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 953 are hereby repealed and other laws, decrees, executive orders, institutions, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with these provisions are also repealed or amended accordingly. Sec. 4. This Decree shall take effect immediately. Pursuant to the wording of Sec. 31 of P.D. 957 as above amended by the aforequoted P.D. No. 1216, private respondent is under legal obligation to donate the open space exclusively allocated for parks, playgrounds and recreational use to the petitioner. This can be clearly established by referring to the original provision of Sec. 31 of P.D. 957, which reads as follows: Sec. 31. Donation of roads and open spaces to local government The registered owner developer of the subdivision or condominium project, upon completion of the development of said project may, at his option, convey by way of donation the roads and open spaces found within the project to the city or municipality wherein the project is located. Upon acceptance of he donation by the city or municipality concerned, no portion of the area donated shall thereafter be converted to any other purpose or purposes unless after hearing, the proposed conversion is approved by the Authority. (Emphasis supplied) It will be noted that under the aforequoted original provision, it was optional on the part of the owner or developer to donate the roads and spaces found within the project to the city or municipality where the project is located. Elsewise stated, there was no legal obligation to make the donation.

However, said Sec. 31 as amended now states in its last paragraph: Upon their completion . . ., the roads, alleys, sidewalks and playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local government to accept; provided, however, that the parks and playgrounds may be donated to the Homeowners Association of the project with the consent of the city or must concerned. . . . It is clear from the aforequoted amendment that it is no longer optional on the part of the subdivision owner/developer to donate the grounds; rather there is now a legal obligation to donate the same. Although there is a proviso a proviso that the donation of the parks and playgrounds may be made to the homeowners association of the project with the consent of the city of municipality, concerned, nonetheless, the owner/developer is still obligated under the law to donate. Such option does not change the mandatory hectare of the provision. The donation has to be made regardless of which donee is picked by the owner/developer. The consent requirement before the same can be donated to the homeowners" association emphasizes this point. Second Issue: Percentage of Area for Parks and Playgrounds Petitioners contend that the 3.5% to 9% allotted by Sec. 31 for parks, playgrounds and recreational uses should be based on the gross area of the entire subdivision, and not merely on the area of the open space alone, as contended by private respondent and as decided by the respondent Court. 10 The petitioners are correct. The language of Section 31 of P.D. 957 as amended by Section 2 of P.D. 1216 is wanting in clarity and exactitude, but it can be easily inferred that the phrase "gross area" refers to the entire subdivision area. The said phrase was used four times in the same section in two sentences, the first of which reads: . . . For subdivision projects one (1) hectare or more, the owner or more, the owner or developer shall reserve thirty percent (30%) of the gross area for open space, . . . Here, the phrase "30% of the gross area" refers to the total area of the subdivision, not of the open space. Otherwise, the definition of "open space" would be circular. Thus, logic dictates that the same basis be applied in the succeeding instances where the phrase "open space" is used, i.e., "9% of gross area... 7% of gross area... 3.5% of gross area..." Moreover, we agree with petitioners that construing the 3.5% to 9% as applying to the totality of the open space would result in far too small an area being devoted for parks, playgrounds, etc., thus rendering meaningless and defeating the purpose of the statute. This becomes clear when viewed in the light of the original requirement of P.D. 953 ("Requiring the Planting of Trees in Certain Places, etc."), section 2 of which reads: Sec. 2. Every owner of land subdivided into commerce/residential/industrial lots after the effectivity of this Decree shall reserve, develop and maintain not less than thirty percent (30%) of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive of roads, service streets and alleys, as open space for parks and recreational areas. No plan for a subdivision shall be approved by the Land Registration Commission or any office or agency of the government unless at least thirty percent (30%) of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive, of roads, service streets and alleys, is reserved as open space for parks and recreational areas . . . To our mind, it is clear that P.D. 1216 was an attempt to achieve a happy compromise and a realistic balance between the imperatives of environmental planning and the need to maintain economic feasibility in subdivision and housing development, by reducing the required area for parks, playgrounds and recreational uses from thirty percent (30%) to only 3.5% 9% of the entire area of the subdivision. Third Issue: Imposition of Conditions in Donation of Open Space Petitioners argue that since the private respondent is required by law to donate the parks and playgrounds, it has no right to impose the condition in the Amended Deed of Donation that "the properties donated shall be devoted and utilized solely for the site of the Angeles City Sports Center." It cannot prescribe any condition as to the use of the area donated because the use of the open spaces already governed by P.D. 1216. In other words, the donation should be absolute. Consequently, the conditions in the amended deed which were allegedly violated aredeemed not written. Such being the case, petitioners cannot be considered to have committed any violation of the terms and conditions of the said amended deed, as the donation is deemed unconditional, and it follows that there is no basis for revocation of the donation. However, the general law on donations does not prohibit the imposition of conditions on a donation so long as the conditions are not illegal or impossible. 11

In regard to donations of open spaces, P.D. 1216 itself requires among other things that the recreational areas to be donated be based, as aforementioned, on a percentage (3.5% 7%, or 9%) of the total area of the subdivision depending on whether the division is low , medium , or high-density. It further declares that such open space devoted to parks, playgrounds and recreational areas are non-alienable public land and non-buildable. However, there is no prohibition in either P.D. 957 or P.D. 1216 against imposing conditions on such donation. We hold that any condition may be imposed in the donation, so long as the same is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The contention of petitioners that the donation should be unconditional because it is mandatory has no basis in law. P.D. 1216 does not provide that the donation the open space for parks and playgrounds should be unconditional. To rule that it should be so is tantamount to unlawfully expanding, the provisions of the decree. 12 In the case at bar, one of the conditions imposed in the Amended Deed of Donation is that the donee should build a sports complex on the donated land. Since P.D. 1216 clearly requires that the 3.5% to 9% of the gross area alloted for parks and playgrounds is "non-buildable", then the obvious question arises whether or not such condition was validly imposed and is binding on the donee. It is clear that the "non-buildable" character applies only to the 3.5% to 9% area set by law. If there is any excess land over and above the 3.5% to 9% required by the decree, which is also used or allocated for parks, playgrounds and recreational purposes, it is obvious that such excess area is not covered by the non-buildability restriction. In the instant case, if there be an excess, then the donee would not be barred from developing and operating a sports complex thereon, and the condition in the amended deed would then be considered valid and binding. To determine if the over 50,000 square meter area donated pursuant to the amended deed would yield an excess over the area required by the decree, it is necessary to determine under which density category the Timog Park subdivision falls. If the subdivision falls under the low density or open market housing category, with 20 family lots or below per gross hectare, the developer will need to allot only 3.5% of gross area for parks and playgrounds, and since the donated land constitutes "more than five (5) percent of the total land area of the subdivision 13 there would therefore be an excess of over 1.5% of gross area which would not be non-buildable. Petitioners, on the other hand, alleged (and private respondent did not controvert) that the subdivision in question is a "medium-density or economic housing" subdivision based on the sizes of the family lots donated in the amended deed, 14 for which category the decree mandates that not less than 7% of gross area be set aside. Since the donated land constitutes only a little more than 5% of the gross area of the subdivision, which is less than the area required to be allocated for non-buildable open space, therefore there is no "excess land" to speak of. This then means that the condition to build a sports complex on the donated land is contrary to law and should be considered as not imposed. Fourth Issue: Injunction vs. Construction of the Drug Rehabilitation Center Petitioners argue that the court cannot enjoin the construction of the drug rehabilitation center because the decision of the court came only after the construction of the center was completed and, based on jurisprudence, there can be no injunction unction of events that have already transpired. 15 Private respondent, on the other hand, counters that the operation of the center is a continuing act which would clearly cause injury to private respondent, its clients, and residents of the subdivision, and thus, a proper subject of injunction. 16 Equity should move in to granting of the injunctive relief if persistent repetition of the wrong is threatened. In light of Sec. 31 of P.D. 957, as amended, declaring the open space for parks, playgrounds and recreational area as non-buildable, it appears indubitable that the construction and operation of a drug rehabilitation center on the land in question is a continuing violation of the law and thus should be enjoined. Furthermore, the factual background of this case warrants that this Court rule against petitioners on this issue. We agree with and affirm the Court's finding that petitioners committed acts mocking the judicial system. 18 . . . When a writ of preliminary injunction was sought for by the appellee (private respondent) to enjoin the appellants [petitioners herein] from further continuing with the construction of the appellants the said center, the latter resisted and took refuge under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1818 (which prohibits writs of preliminary injunction) to continue with the construction of the building. Yet, the appellants also presented "City Council Resolution No. 227 which allegedly repealed the previous Resolution authorizing the City Government to construct a Drug Rehabilitation Center on the donated property, by "changing the purpose and usage of the Drug Rehabilitation Center to Sports Development and Youth Center to make it conform to the Sports Complex Project therein". Under this Resolution No. 227, the appellants claimed that they have abandoned all plans for the construction of the Drug Rehabilitation Nonetheless, when judgment was finally rendered on February 15, 1989, the appellants were quick to state that they have not after all abandoned their plans for the center as they have in fact inaugurated the same April 15, 1989. In plain and simple

terms, this act is a mockery of our judicial system perpetrated by the appellants. For them to argue that the court deal on their Drug Rehabilitation Center is not only preposterous but also ridiculous. It is interesting to observe that under the appealed decision the appellants and their officers, employees and all other persons acting on their behalf were perpetually enjoined to cease and desist from constructing a Drug Rehabilitation Center on the donated property. Under Section 4 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, it is provided that: Sec. 4 A judgment in an action for injunction shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is taken or during the tendency of an appeal . Accordingly, a judgment restraining a party from doing a certain act is enforceable and shall remain in full force and effect appeal. In the case at bar, the cease and desist order therefore still stands. Appellants persistence and continued construction and, subsequent, operation of the Drug Rehabilitation Center violate the express terms of the writ of injunction lawfully issued by the lower court. This Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the above mentioned findings of the respondent court. The allegation of the petitioners that the construction of the center was finished before the judgment of the trial court was rendered deserves scant consideration because it is self-serving and is completely unsupported by other evidence. The fact remains that the trial court rendered judgment enjoining the construction of the drug rehabilitation center, revoking the donation and ordering the return of the donated land. In spite of such injunction, petitioners publicly flaunted their disregard thereof with the subsequent inauguration of the center on August 15, 1989. The operation o the center, after inauguration, is even more censurable Fifth Issue: Revocation of a Mandatory Donation Because of Noncompliance With an Illegal Condition The private respondent contends that the building of said drug rehabilitation center is violative of the Amended Deed of Donation. Therefore, under Article 764 of the New Civil Code and stipulation no. 8 of the amended deed, private respondent is empowered to revoke the donation when the donee has failed to comply with any of the conditions imposed in the deed. We disagree. Article 1412 of the Civil Code which provides that: If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed: (1) When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other's undertaking; comes into play here. Both petitioners and private respondents are in violation of P.D. 957 as amended, for donating and accepting a donation of open space less than that required by law, and for agreeing to build and operate a sports complex on the non-buildable open space so donated; and petitioners, for constructing a drug rehabilitation center on the same non-buildable area. Moreover, since the condition to construct a sport complex on the donated land has previously been shown to be contrary to law, therefore, stipulation no. 8 of the amended deed cannot be implemented because (1) no validstipulation of the amended deed had been breached, and (2) it is highly improbable that the decree would have allowed the return of the donated land for open space under any circumstance, considering the non-alienable character of such open space, in the light of the second Whereas clause of P.D. 1216 which declares that . . . such open spaces, roads, alleys and sidewalks in residential subdivisions are for public use and are, therefore, beyond the commerce of men. Further, as a matter of public policy, private respondent cannot be allowed to evade its statutory obligation to donate the required open space through the expediency of invoking petitioners breach of the aforesaid condition. It is a familiar principle that the courts will not aid either party to enforce an illegal contract, but will leave them both where they find them. Neither party can recover damages from the other arising from the act contrary to law, or plead the same as a cause of action or as a defense. Each must bear the consequences of his own acts. 19 There is therefore no legal basis whatsoever to revoke the donation of the subject open space and to return the donated land to private respondent. The donated land should remain with the donee as the law clearly intended such open spaces to be perpetually part of the public domain, non-alienable and permanently devoted to public use as such parks, playgrounds or recreation areas. Removal/Demolition of Drug Rehabilitation Center

Inasmuch as the construction and operation of the drug rehabilitation center has been established to law, the said center should be removed or demolished. At this juncture, we hasten to add that this Court is and has always been four-square behind the government's efforts to eradicate the drug scourge in this country. But the end never justifies the means, and however laudable the purpose of the construction in question, this Court cannot and will not countenance an outright and continuing violation of the laws of the land, especially when committed by public officials. In theory, the cost of such demolition, and the reimbursement of the public funds expended in the construction thereof, should be borne by the officials of the City Angeles who ordered and directed such construction. This Court has time and again ruled that public officials are not immune from damages in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith. Otherwise stated, a public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. 20 In the instant case, the public officials concerned deliberately violated the law and persisted in their violations, going so far as attempting to deceive the courts by their pretended change of purpose and usage for the enter, and "making a mockery of the judicial system". Indisputably, said public officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and jurisdiction and with evident bad faith. However, as noted by the trial court21, the petitioners mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles City were sued only in theirofficial capacities, hence, they could not be held personally liable without first giving them their day in court. Prevailing jurisprudence 22 holding that public officials are personally liable for damages arising from illegal acts done in bad faith are premised on said officials having been sued both in their official and personal capacities. After due consideration of the circumstances, we believe that the fairest and most equitable solution is to have the City of Angeles, donee of the subject open space and, ostensibly, the main beneficiary of the construction and operation of the proposed drug rehabilitation center, undertake the demolition and removal of said center, and if feasible, recover the cost thereof from the city officials concerned. WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of appeals hereby MODIFIED as follows: (1) Petitioners are hereby ENJOINED perpetually from operating the drug rehabilitation center or any other such facility on the donated open space. (2) Petitioner City of Angeles is ORDERED to undertake and removal of said drug rehabilitation center within a period of three (3) months from finality of this Decision, and thereafter, to devote public use as a park, playground or other recreational use. (3) The Amended Deed of Donation dated November 26, 1984 is hereby declared valid and subsisting, except that the stipulations or conditions therein concerning the construction of the Sports Center or Complex are hereby declared void and as if not imposed, and therefore of no force and effect. No Costs. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 74135 May 28, 1992 M. H. WYLIE and CAPT. JAMES WILLIAMS, petitioners, vs. AURORA I. RARANG and THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The pivotal issue in this petition centers on the extent of the "immunity from suit" of the officials of a United States Naval Base inside Philippine territory. In February, 1978, petitioner M. H. Wylie was the assistant administrative officer while petitioner Capt. James Williams was the commanding officer of the U. S. Naval Base in Subic Bay, Olongapo City. Private respondent Aurora I. Rarang was an employee in the office of the Provost Marshal assigned as merchandise control guard.

M. H. Wylie, in his capacity as assistant administrative officer of the U.S. Naval Station supervised the publication of the "Plan of the Day" (POD) which was published daily by the US Naval Base station. The POD featured important announcements, necessary precautions, and general matters of interest to military personnel. One of the regular features of the POD was the "action line inquiry." On February 3, 1978, the POD published, under the "NAVSTA ACTION LINE INQUIRY" the following: Question: I have observed that Merchandise Control inspector/inspectress are (sic) consuming for their own benefit things they have confiscated from Base Personnel. The observation is even more aggravated by consuming such confiscated items as cigarettes and food stuffs PUBLICLY. This is not to mention "Auring" who is in herself, a disgrace to her division and to the Office of the Provost Marshal. In lieu of this observation, may I therefore, ask if the head of the Merchandise Control Division is aware of this malpractice? Answer: Merchandise Control Guards and all other personnel are prohibited from appropriating confiscated items for their own consumption or use. Two locked containers are installed at the Main Gate area for deposit of confiscated items and the OPM evidence custodian controls access to these containers. Merchandise Control Guards are permitted to eat their meals at their worksite due to heavy workload. Complaints regarding merchandise control guards procedure or actions may be made directly at the Office of the Provost Marshal for immediate and necessary action. Specific dates and time along with details of suspected violations would be most appreciated. Telephone 4-3430/4-3234 for further information or to report noted or suspected irregularities. Exhibits E & E-1. (Rollo, pp. 1112) The private respondent was the only one who was named "Auring" in the Office of the Provost Marshal. That the private respondent was the same "Auring" referred to in the POD was conclusively proven when on February 7, 1978, petitioner M. H. Wylie wrote her a letter of apology for the "inadvertent" publication. The private respondent then commenced an action for damages in the Court of First Instance of Zambales (now Regional Trial Court) against M. H. Wylie, Capt. James Williams and the U. S. Naval Base. She alleged that the article constituted false, injurious, and malicious defamation and libel tending to impeach her honesty, virtue and reputation exposing her to public hatred, contempt and ridicule; and that the libel was published and circulated in the English language and read by almost all the U. S. Naval Base personnel. She prayed that she be awarded P300,000.00 as moral damages; exemplary damages which the court may find proper; and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. In response to the complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss anchored on three grounds: 1. Defendants M. H. Wylie and Capt. James Williams acted in the performance of their official functions as officers of the United States Navy and are, therefore, immune from suit; 2. The United States Naval Base is an instrumentality of the US government which cannot be sued without its consent; and 3. This Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as the parties in this case. (Record on Appeal, pp. 133-134) The motion was, however, denied. In their answer, the defendants reiterated the lack of jurisdiction of the court over the case. In its decision, the trial court ruled that the acts of defendants M. H. Wylie and Cpt. James Williams were not official acts of the government of the United States of America in the operation and control of the Base but personal and tortious acts which are exceptions to the general rule that a sovereign country cannot be sued in the court of another country without its consent. In short, the trial court ruled that the acts and omissions of the two US officials were not imputable against the US government but were done in the individual and personal capacities of the said officials. The trial court dismissed the suit against the US Naval Base. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally, as follows: 1) Ordering defendants M. H. Wylie and Capt. James Williams to pay the plaintiff Aurora Rarang the sum of one hundred thousand (P100,000.00) pesos by way of moral and exemplary damages; 2) Ordering defendants M. H. Wylie and Capt. James Williams to pay the plaintiff the sum of thirty thousand (P30,000.00) pesos by way of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and 3) To pay the costs of this suit.

Counterclaims are dismissed. Likewise, the suit against the U.S. Naval Base is ordered dismissed. (Record on Appeal, p. 154) On appeal, the petitioners reiterated their stance that they are immune from suit since the subject publication was made in their official capacities as officers of the U. S. Navy. They also maintained that they did not intentionally and maliciously cause the questioned publication. The private respondent, not satisfied with the amount of damages awarded to her, also appealed the trial court's decision. Acting on these appeals, the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, modified the trial court's decision, to wit: WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court below is modified so that the defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P175,000.00 as moral damages and the sum of P60,000.00 as exemplary damages. The rest of the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto. Costs against the defendants-appellants. (Rollo, p. 44) The appellate court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners. Hence, this petition. In a resolution dated March 9, 1987, we gave due course to the petition. The petitioners persist that they made the questioned publication in the performance of their official functions as administrative assistant, in the case of M. H. Wylie, and commanding officer, in the case of Capt. James Williams of the US Navy assigned to the U. S. Naval Station, Subic Bay, Olongapo City and were, therefore, immune from suit for their official actions. In the case of United States of America v. Guinto (182 SCRA 644 [1990]), we discussed the principle of the state immunity from suit as follows: The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2. xxx xxx xxx Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states. As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that "there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends." (Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349) There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." (Da Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171) While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. (Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120) In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent. The doctrine is sometimes derisively called "the royal prerogative of dishonesty" because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its nonsuability. That is hardly fair, at least in democratic societies, for the state is not an unfeeling tyrant unmoved by the valid claims of its citizens. In fact, the doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not be sued under any circumstance. On the contrary, the rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it consents.

The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. Consent is implied when the state enters into a contract it itself commences litigation. xxx xxx xxx The above rules are subject to qualification. Express consent is effected only by the will of the legislature through the medium of a duly enacted statute. (Republic v. Purisima, 78 SCRA 470) We have held that not all contracts entered into by the government will operate as a waiver of its nonsuability; distinction must be made between its sovereign and proprietary acts. (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487) As for the filing of a complaint by the government, suability will result only where the government is claiming affirmative relief from the defendant. (Lim v. Brownell, 107 Phil. 345) (at pp. 652-655) In the same case we had opportunity to discuss extensively the nature and extent of immunity from suit of United States personnel who are assigned and stationed in Philippine territory, to wit: In the case of the United States of America, the customary rule of international law on state immunity is expressed with more specificity in the RP-US Bases Treaty. Article III thereof provides as follows: It is mutually agreed that the United States shall have the rights, power and authority within the bases which are necessary for the establishment, use, operation and defense thereof or appropriate for the control thereof and all the rights, power and authority within the limits of the territorial waters and air space adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the bases which are necessary to provide access to them or appropriate for their control. The petitioners also rely heavily on Baer v. Tizon, (57 SCRA 1) along with several other decisions, to support their position that they are not suable in the cases below, the United States not having waived its sovereign immunity from suit. It is emphasized that in Baer, the Court held: The invocation of the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state without its consent is appropriate. More specifically, insofar as alien armed forces is concerned, the starting point is Raquiza v. Bradford, a 1945 decision. In dismissing a habeas corpus petition for the release of petitioners confined by American army authorities, Justice Hilado, speaking for the Court, cited Coleman v. Tennessee, where it was explicitly declared: "It is well settled that a foreign army, permitted to march through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, by permission of its government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place." Two years later, in Tubb and Tedrow v. Griess, this Court relied on the ruling in Raquiza v. Bradford and cited in support thereof excerpts from the works of the following authoritative writers: Vattel, Wheaton, Hall, Lawrence, Oppenheim, Westlake, Hyde, and McNair and Lauterpacht. Accuracy demands the clarification that after the conclusion of the Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement, the treaty provisions should control on such matter, the assumption being that there was a manifestation of the submission to jurisdiction on the part of the foreign power whenever appropriate. More to the point is Syquia v. Almeda Lopez, where plaintiffs as lessors sued the Commanding General of the United States Army in the Philippines, seeking the restoration to them of the apartment buildings they owned leased to the United States armed forces station in the Manila area. A motion to dismiss on the ground of non-suability was filed and upheld by respondent Judge. The matter was taken to this Court in a mandamus proceeding. It failed. It was the ruling that respondent Judge acted correctly considering that the "action must be considered as one against the U.S. Government." The opinion of Justice Montemayor continued: "It is clear that the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The U.S. Government has not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles of law behind this rule are so elementary and of such general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof." xxx xxx xxx It bears stressing at this point that the above observations do not confer on the United States of America a blanket immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines. Neither may the

other petitioners claim that they are also insulated from suit in this country merely because they have acted as agents of the United States in the discharge of their official functions. There is no question that the United States of America, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. This was our ruling in United States of America v. Ruiz, (136 SCRA 487) where the transaction in question dealt with the improvement of the wharves in the naval installation at Subic Bay. As this was a clearly governmental function, we held that the contract did not operate to divest the United States of its sovereign immunity from suit. In the words of Justice Vicente Abad Santos: The traditional rule of immunity excepts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other states in Western Europe. xxx xxx xxx The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes. The other petitioners in the cases before us all aver they have acted in the discharge of their official functions as officers or agents of the United States. However, this is a matter of evidence. The charges against them may not be summarily dismissed on their mere assertion that their acts are imputable to the United States of America, which has not given its consent to be sued. In fact, the defendants are sought to be held answerable for personal torts in which the United States itself is not involved. If found liable, they and they alone must satisfy the judgment. (At pp. 655-658) In the light of these precedents, we proceed to resolve the present case. The POD was published under the direction and authority of the commanding officer, U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay. The administrative assistant, among his other duties, is tasked to prepare and distribute the POD. On February 3, 1978, when the questioned article was published in the POD, petitioner Capt. James Williams was the commanding officer while petitioner M.H. Wylie was the administrative assistant of the US Naval Station at Subic bay. The NAVSTA ACTION LINE INQUIRY is a regular feature of the POD. It is a telephone answering device in the office of the Administrative Assistant. The Action Line is intended to provide personnel access to the Commanding Officer on matters they feel should be brought to his attention for correction or investigation. The matter of inquiry may be phoned in or mailed to the POD. (TSN, September 9, 1980, pp. 12-13, Jerry Poblon) According to M. H. Wylie, the action line naming "Auring" was received about three (3) weeks prior to its being published in the POD on February 3, 1978. It was forwarded to Rarang's office of employment, the Provost Marshal, for comment. The Provost Marshal office's response ". . . included a short note stating that if the article was published, to remove the name." (Exhibit 8-A, p. 5) The Provost Marshal's response was then forwarded to the executive officer and to the commanding officer for approval. The approval of the Commanding officer was forwarded to the office of the Administrative Assistant for inclusion in the POD. A certain Mrs. Dologmodin, a clerk typist in the office of the Administrative Assistant prepared the smooth copy of the POD. Finally, M. H. Wylie, the administrative assistant signed the smooth copy of the POD but failed to notice the reference to "Auring" in the action line inquiry. (Exh. 8-A, pp. 4-5, Questions Nos. 14-15). There is no question, therefore, that the two (2) petitioners actively participated in screening the features and articles in the POD as part of their official functions. Under the rule that U.S. officials in the performance of their official functions are immune from suit, then it should follow that the petitioners may not be held liable for the questioned publication.

It is to be noted, however, that the petitioners were sued in their personal capacities for their alleged tortious acts in publishing a libelous article. The question, therefore, arises are American naval officers who commit a crime or tortious act while discharging official functions still covered by the principle of state immunity from suit? Pursuing the question further, does the grant of rights, power, and authority to the United States under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover immunity of its officers from crimes and torts? Our answer is No. Killing a person in cold blood while on patrol duty, running over a child while driving with reckless imprudence on an official trip, or slandering a person during office hours could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement. Our laws and, we presume, those of the United States do not allow the commission of crimes in the name of official duty. The case of Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282 [1991] gives the law on immunity from suit of public officials: The general rule is that public officials can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where there is showing of bad faith. xxx xxx xxx Moreover, the petitioner's argument that the immunity proviso under Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 1 also extends to him is not well-taken. A mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the charges being automatically dropped. In the case of Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Pea (159 SCRA 556 [1988] then Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, added a clarification of the immunity accorded PCGG officials under Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 1 as follows: With respect to the qualifications expressed by Mr. Justice Feliciano in his separate opinion, I just wish to point out two things: First, the main opinion does not claim absolute immunity for the members of the Commission. The cited section of Executive Order No. 1 provides the Commission's members immunity from suit thus: "No civil action shall lie against the Commission or any member thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task contemplated by this order." No absolute immunity like that sought by Mr. Marcos in his Constitution for himself and his subordinates is herein involved. It is understood that the immunity granted the members of the Commission by virtue of the unimaginable magnitude of its task to recover the plundered wealth and the State's exercise of police power was immunity from liability for damages in the official discharge of the task granted the members of the Commission much in the same manner that judges are immune from suit in the official discharge of the functions of their office. . . . (at pp. 581-582) xxx xxx xxx Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the Republic. (id., at page 586) Where the petitioner exceeds his authority as Solicitor General, acts in bad faith, or, as contended by the private respondent, "maliciously conspir(es) with the PCGG commissioners in persecuting respondent Enrile by filing against him an evidently baseless suit in derogation of the latter's constitutional rights and liberties" (Rollo, p. 417), there can be no question that a complaint for damages does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another. The actions governed by Articles 19, 20, 21, and 32 of the Civil Code on Human Relations may be taken against public officers or private citizens alike. . . . (pp. 289-291) We apply the same ruling to this case. The subject article in the US Newsletter POD dated February 3, 1978 mentions a certain "Auring" as ". . a disgrace to her division and to the Office of the Provost Marshal." The same article explicitly implies that Auring was consuming and appropriating for herself confiscated items like cigarettes and foodstuffs. There is no question that the Auring alluded to in the Article was the private respondent as she was the only Auring in the Office of the Provost Marshal. Moreover, as a result of this article, the private respondent was investigated by her supervisor. Before the article came out, the private respondent had been the recipient of commendations by her superiors for honesty in the performance of her duties. It may be argued that Captain James Williams as commanding officer of the naval base is far removed in the chain of command from the offensive publication and it would be asking too much to hold him responsible for everything

which goes wrong on the base. This may be true as a general rule. In this particular case, however, the records show that the offensive publication was sent to the commanding officer for approval and he approved it. The factual findings of the two courts below are based on the records. The petitioners have shown no convincing reasons why our usual respect for the findings of the trial court and the respondent court should be withheld in this particular case and why their decisions should be reversed. Article 2176 of the Civil Code prescribes a civil liability for damages caused by a person's act or omission constituting fault or negligence, to wit: Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. "Fault" or "negligence" in this Article covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional or voluntary or negligent." (Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 191 SCRA 195 [1990]). Moreover, Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in case of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. In effect, the offended party in these cases is given the right to receive from the guilty party moral damages for injury to his feelings and reputation in addition to punitive or exemplary damages. (Occena v. Icamina, 181 SCRA 328 [1990]). In another case, Heirs of Basilisa Justiva v. Gustilo, 7 SCRA 72 [1963], we ruled that the allegation of forgery of documents could be a defamation, which in the light of Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code could by analogy be ground for payment of moral damages, considering the wounded feelings and besmirched reputation of the defendants. Indeed the imputation of theft contained in the POD dated February 3, 1978 is a defamation against the character and reputation of the private respondent. Petitioner Wylie himself admitted that the Office of the Provost Marshal explicitly recommended the deletion of the name Auring if the article were published. The petitioners, however, were negligent because under their direction they issued the publication without deleting the name "Auring." Such act or omission is ultra vires and cannot be part of official duty. It was a tortious act which ridiculed the private respondent. As a result of the petitioners' act, the private respondent, according to the record, suffered besmirched reputation, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, specially so, since the article was baseless and false. The petitioners, alone, in their personal capacities are liable for the damages they caused the private respondent. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision and resolution of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, are AFFIRMED. Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., took no part. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 70853 March 12, 1987 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee, vs. PABLO FELICIANO and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents-appellants.

YAP, J.: Petitioner seeks the review of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated April 30, 1985 reversing the order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch VI, dated August 21, 1980, which dismissed the complaint of respondent Pablo Feliciano for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land on the ground of non-suability of the State. The background of the present controversy may be briefly summarized as follows: On January 22, 1970, respondent Feliciano filed a complaint with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Authority, for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, consisting of four (4) lots with an aggregate area of 1,364.4177 hectares, situated in the Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Plaintiff alleged that he bought the property in

question from Victor Gardiola by virtue of a Contract of Sale dated May 31, 1952, followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale on October 30, 1954; that Gardiola had acquired the property by purchase from the heirs of Francisco Abrazado whose title to the said property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria that upon plaintiff's purchase of the property, he took actual possession of the same, introduced various improvements therein and caused it to be surveyed in July 1952, which survey was approved by the Director of Lands on October 24, 1954; that on November 1, 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90 reserving for settlement purposes, under the administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), a tract of land situated in the Municipalities of Tinambac and Siruma, Camarines Sur, after which the NARRA and its successor agency, the Land Authority, started sub-dividing and distributing the land to the settlers; that the property in question, while located within the reservation established under Proclamation No. 90, was the private property of plaintiff and should therefore be excluded therefrom. Plaintiff prayed that he be declared the rightful and true owner of the property in question consisting of 1,364.4177 hectares; that his title of ownership based oninformacion posesoria of his predecessor-in-interest be declared legal valid and subsisting and that defendant be ordered to cancel and nullify all awards to the settlers. The defendant, represented by the Land Authority, filed an answer, raising by way of affirmative defenses lack of sufficient cause of action and prescription. On August 29, 1970, the trial court, through Judge Rafael S. Sison, rendered a decision declaring Lot No. 1, with an area of 701.9064 hectares, to be the private property of the plaintiff, "being covered by a possessory information title in the name of his predecessor-in-interest" and declaring said lot excluded from the NARRA settlement reservation. The court declared the rest of the property claimed by plaintiff, i.e. Lots 2, 3 and 4, reverted to the public domain. A motion to intervene and to set aside the decision of August 29, 1970 was filed by eighty-six (86) settlers, together with the barrio council of Pag-asay, alleging among other things that intervenors had been in possession of the land in question for more than twenty (20) years under claim of ownership. On January 25, 1971, the court a quo reconsidered its decision, reopened the case and directed the intervenors to file their corresponding pleadings and present their evidence; all evidence already presented were to remain but plaintiff, as well as the Republic of the Philippines, could present additional evidence if they so desire. The plaintiff presented additional evidence on July 30, 1971, and the case was set for hearing for the reception of intervenors' evidence on August 30 and August 31, 1971. On August 30, 1971, the date set for the presentation of the evidence for intervenors, the latter did not appear but submitted a motion for postponement and resetting of the hearing on the next day, August 31, 1971. The trial court denied the motion for postponement and allowed plaintiff to offer his evidence "en ausencia," after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision. On the following day, August 31, 1971, Judge Sison rendered a decision reiterating his decision of August 29, 1970. A motion for reconsideration was immediately filed by the intervenors. But before this motion was acted upon, plaintiff filed a motion for execution, dated November 18, 1971. On December 10, 1971, the lower court, this time through Judge Miguel Navarro, issued an order denying the motion for execution and setting aside the order denying intervenors' motion for postponement. The case was reopened to allow intervenors to present their evidence. Unable to secure a reconsideration of Judge Navarro's order, the plaintiff went to the Intermediate Appellate Court on a petition for certiorari. Said petition was, however, denied by the Intermediate Appellate Court, and petitioners brought the matter to this Court in G.R. No. 36163, which was denied on May 3, 1973 Consequently, the case was remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. On August 31, 1970, intervenors filed a motion to dismiss, principally on the ground that the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued without its consent and hence the action cannot prosper. The motion was opposed by the plaintiff. 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 nonsuability 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. Upon denial of the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff again went to the Intermediate Appellate Court on petition for certiorari. On April 30, 1985, the respondent appellate court rendered its decision reversing the order of Judge Lising and remanding the case to the court a quo for further proceedings. Hence this petition. We find the petition meritorious. The doctrine of non-suability of the State has proper application in this case. The plaintiff has impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, bringing the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to be usurping a piece of property. A suit for the recovery of property is not an action in rem, but an action in personam.1 It is an action directed against a specific party or parties, and any judgment therein binds only such party or parties. The

complaint filed by plaintiff, the private respondent herein, is directed against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Authority, a governmental agency created by Republic Act No. 3844. By its caption and its allegation and prayer, the complaint is clearly a suit against the State, which under settled jurisprudence 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. 2 There is no such showing in the instant case. Worse, the complaint itself fails to allege the existence of such consent. This is a fatal defect, 3and on this basis alone, the complaint should have been dismissed. The failure of the petitioner to assert the defense of immunity from suit when the case was tried before the court a quo, as alleged by private respondent, is not fatal. It is now settled that such defense "may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings." 4 Private respondent contends that the consent of petitioner may be read from the Proclamation itself, when it established the reservation " subject to private rights, if any there be. " We do not agree. No such consent can be drawn from the language of the Proclamation. The exclusion of existing private rights from the reservation established by Proclamation No. 90 can not be construed as a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly. but must be construed instrictissimi juris. 5 Moreover, the Proclamation is not a legislative act. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. Neither is there merit in respondent's submission, which the respondent appellate court sustained, on the basis of our decision in the Begosa case, 6 that the present action is not a suit against the State within the rule of State immunity from suit, because plaintiff does not seek to divest the Government of any of its lands or its funds. It is contended that the complaint involves land not owned by the State, but private land belonging to the plaintiff, hence the Government is not being divested of any of its properties. There is some sophistry involved in this argument, since the character of the land sought to be recovered still remains to be established, and the plaintiff's action is directed against the State precisely to compel the latter to litigate the ownership and possession of the property. In other words, the plaintiff is out to establish that he is the owner of the land in question based, incidentally, on an informacion posesoria of dubious value, and he seeks to establish his claim of ownership by suing the Republic of the Philippines in an action in personam. The inscription in the property registry of an informacion posesoria under the Spanish Mortgage Law was a means provided by the law then in force in the Philippines prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States of America, to record a claimant's actual possession of a piece of land, established through an ex parteproceeding conducted in accordance with prescribed rules. 7 Such inscription merely furnishes, at best, prima facie evidence of the fact that at the time the proceeding was held, the claimant was in possession of the land under a claim of right as set forth in his application. 8 The possessory information could ripen into a record of ownership after the lapse of 20 years (later reduced to 10 years), upon the fulfillment of the requisites prescribed in Article 393 of the Spanish Mortgage Law. There is no showing in the case at bar that the informacion posesoria held by the respondent had been converted into a record of ownership. Such possessory information, therefore, remained at best mere prima facie evidence of possession. Using this possessory information, the respondent could have applied for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under the Public Land Act, which is an action in rem. However, having failed to do so, it is rather late for him to pursue this avenue at this time. Respondent must also contend, as the records disclose, with the fact admitted by him and stated in the decision of the Court a quo that settlers have been occupying and cultivating the land in question since even before the outbreak of the war, which puts in grave doubt his own claim of possession. Worthy of note is the fact, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, that the informacion posesoria registered in the Office of the Register of Deed of Camarines Sur on September 23, 1952 was a "reconstituted" possessory information; it was "reconstituted from the duplicate presented to this office (Register of Deeds) by Dr. Pablo Feliciano," without the submission of proof that the alleged duplicate was authentic or that the original thereof was lost. Reconstitution can be validly made only in case of loss of the original. 10 These circumstances raise grave doubts as to the authenticity and validity of the "informacion posesoria" relied upon by respondent Feliciano. Adding to the dubiousness of said document is the fact that "possessory information calls for an area of only 100 hectares," 11 whereas the land claimed by respondent Feliciano comprises 1,364.4177 hectares, later reduced to 701-9064 hectares. Courts should be wary in accepting "possessory information documents, as well as other purportedly old Spanish titles, as proof of alleged ownership of lands. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing and setting aside the appealed decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, dated April 30, 1985, and affirming the order of the court a quo, dated August 21, 1980, dismissing the complaint filed by respondent Pablo Feliciano against the Republic of the Philippines. No costs. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC G.R. No. L-11154 March 21, 1916

E. MERRITT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, defendant-appellant. Crossfield and O'Brien for plaintiff. Attorney-General Avancea for defendant.. TRENT, J.: This is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P14,741, together with the costs of the cause. Counsel for the plaintiff insist that the trial court erred (1) "in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000, instead of P25,000 as claimed in the complaint," and (2) "in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months and twenty-one days and fixing the damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint." The Attorney-General on behalf of the defendant urges that the trial court erred: (a) in finding that the collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; (b) in holding that the Government of the Philippine Islands is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be true that the collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; and (c) in rendering judgment against the defendant for the sum of P14,741. The trial court's findings of fact, which are fully supported by the record, are as follows: It is a fact not disputed by counsel for the defendant that when the plaintiff, riding on a motorcycle, was going toward the western part of Calle Padre Faura, passing along the west side thereof at a speed of ten to twelve miles an hour, upon crossing Taft Avenue and when he was ten feet from the southwestern intersection of said streets, the General Hospital ambulance, upon reaching said avenue, instead of turning toward the south, after passing the center thereof, so that it would be on the left side of said avenue, as is prescribed by the ordinance and the Motor Vehicle Act, turned suddenly and unexpectedly and long before reaching the center of the street, into the right side of Taft Avenue, without having sounded any whistle or horn, by which movement it struck the plaintiff, who was already six feet from the southwestern point or from the post place there. By reason of the resulting collision, the plaintiff was so severely injured that, according to Dr. Saleeby, who examined him on the very same day that he was taken to the General Hospital, he was suffering from a depression in the left parietal region, a would in the same place and in the back part of his head, while blood issued from his nose and he was entirely unconscious. The marks revealed that he had one or more fractures of the skull and that the grey matter and brain was had suffered material injury. At ten o'clock of the night in question, which was the time set for performing the operation, his pulse was so weak and so irregular that, in his opinion, there was little hope that he would live. His right leg was broken in such a way that the fracture extended to the outer skin in such manner that it might be regarded as double and the would be exposed to infection, for which reason it was of the most serious nature. At another examination six days before the day of the trial, Dr. Saleeby noticed that the plaintiff's leg showed a contraction of an inch and a half and a curvature that made his leg very weak and painful at the point of the fracture. Examination of his head revealed a notable readjustment of the functions of the brain and nerves. The patient apparently was slightly deaf, had a light weakness in his eyes and in his mental condition. This latter weakness was always noticed when the plaintiff had to do any difficult mental labor, especially when he attempted to use his money for mathematical calculations. According to the various merchants who testified as witnesses, the plaintiff's mental and physical condition prior to the accident was excellent, and that after having received the injuries that have been discussed, his physical condition had undergone a noticeable depreciation, for he had lost the agility, energy, and ability that he had constantly displayed before the accident as one of the best constructors of wooden buildings and he could not now earn even a half of the income that he had secured for his work because he had lost 50 per cent of his efficiency. As a contractor, he could no longer, as he had before done, climb up ladders and scaffoldings to reach the highest parts of the building. As a consequence of the loss the plaintiff suffered in the efficiency of his work as a contractor, he had to dissolved the partnership he had formed with the engineer. Wilson, because he was incapacitated from

making mathematical calculations on account of the condition of his leg and of his mental faculties, and he had to give up a contract he had for the construction of the Uy Chaco building." We may say at the outset that we are in full accord with the trial court to the effect that the collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital was due solely to the negligence of the chauffeur. The two items which constitute a part of the P14,741 and which are drawn in question by the plaintiff are (a) P5,000, the award awarded for permanent injuries, and (b) the P2,666, the amount allowed for the loss of wages during the time the plaintiff was incapacitated from pursuing his occupation. We find nothing in the record which would justify us in increasing the amount of the first. As to the second, the record shows, and the trial court so found, that the plaintiff's services as a contractor were worth P1,000 per month. The court, however, limited the time to two months and twenty-one days, which the plaintiff was actually confined in the hospital. In this we think there was error, because it was clearly established that the plaintiff was wholly incapacitated for a period of six months. The mere fact that he remained in the hospital only two months and twenty-one days while the remainder of the six months was spent in his home, would not prevent recovery for the whole time. We, therefore, find that the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, without any fault on his part, is P18,075. As the negligence which caused the collision is a tort committed by an agent or employee of the Government, the inquiry at once arises whether the Government is legally-liable for the damages resulting therefrom. Act No. 2457, effective February 3, 1915, reads: An Act authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit against the Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in said suit. Whereas a claim has been filed against the Government of the Philippine Islands by Mr. E. Merritt, of Manila, for damages resulting from a collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital on March twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; Whereas it is not known who is responsible for the accident nor is it possible to determine the amount of damages, if any, to which the claimant is entitled; and Whereas the Director of Public Works and the Attorney-General recommended that an Act be passed by the Legislature authorizing Mr. E. Merritt to bring suit in the courts against the Government, in order that said questions may be decided: Now, therefore, By authority of the United States, be it enacted by the Philippine Legislature, that: SECTION 1. E. Merritt is hereby authorized to bring suit in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila against the Government of the Philippine Islands in order to fix the responsibility for the collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital, and to determine the amount of the damages, if any, to which Mr. E. Merritt is entitled on account of said collision, and the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands is hereby authorized and directed to appear at the trial on the behalf of the Government of said Islands, to defendant said Government at the same. SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect on its passage. Enacted, February 3, 1915. Did the defendant, in enacting the above quoted Act, simply waive its immunity from suit or did it also concede its liability to the plaintiff? If only the former, then it cannot be held that the Act created any new cause of action in favor of the plaintiff or extended the defendant's liability to any case not previously recognized. All admit that the Insular Government (the defendant) cannot be sued by an individual without its consent. It is also admitted that the instant case is one against the Government. As the consent of the Government to be sued by the plaintiff was entirely voluntary on its part, it is our duty to look carefully into the terms of the consent, and render judgment accordingly. The plaintiff was authorized to bring this action against the Government "in order to fix the responsibility for the collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital and to determine the amount of the damages, if any, to which Mr. E. Merritt is entitled on account of said collision, . . . ." These were the two questions submitted to the court for determination. The Act was passed "in order that said questions may be decided." We have "decided" that the accident was due solely to the negligence of the chauffeur, who was at the time an employee of the defendant, and we have also fixed the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision. Does the Act authorize us to hold that the Government is legally liable for that amount? If not, we must look elsewhere for such authority, if it exists.

The Government of the Philippine Islands having been "modeled after the Federal and State Governments in the United States," we may look to the decisions of the high courts of that country for aid in determining the purpose and scope of Act No. 2457. In the United States the rule that the state is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs, except when expressly made so by legislative enactment, is well settled. "The Government," says Justice Story, "does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of the public interest." (Claussen vs. City of Luverne, 103 Minn., 491, citing U. S. vs. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat, 720; 6 L. Ed., 199; and Beers vs. States, 20 How., 527; 15 L. Ed., 991.) In the case of Melvin vs. State (121 Cal., 16), the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the state for personal injuries received on account of the negligence of the state officers at the state fair, a state institution created by the legislature for the purpose of improving agricultural and kindred industries; to disseminate information calculated to educate and benefit the industrial classes; and to advance by such means the material interests of the state, being objects similar to those sought by the public school system. In passing upon the question of the state's liability for the negligent acts of its officers or agents, the court said: No claim arises against any government is favor of an individual, by reason of the misfeasance, laches, or unauthorized exercise of powers by its officers or agents. (Citing Gibbons vs. U. S., 8 Wall., 269; Clodfelter vs. State, 86 N. C., 51, 53; 41 Am. Rep., 440; Chapman vs. State, 104 Cal., 690; 43 Am. St. Rep., 158; Green vs. State, 73 Cal., 29; Bourn vs. Hart, 93 Cal., 321; 27 Am. St. Rep., 203; Story on Agency, sec. 319.) As to the scope of legislative enactments permitting individuals to sue the state where the cause of action arises out of either fort or contract, the rule is stated in 36 Cyc., 915, thus: By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. In Apfelbacher vs. State (152 N. W., 144, advanced sheets), decided April 16, 1915, the Act of 1913, which authorized the bringing of this suit, read: SECTION 1. Authority is hereby given to George Apfelbacher, of the town of Summit, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, to bring suit in such court or courts and in such form or forms as he may be advised for the purpose of settling and determining all controversies which he may now have with the State of Wisconsin, or its duly authorized officers and agents, relative to the mill property of said George Apfelbacher, the fish hatchery of the State of Wisconsin on the Bark River, and the mill property of Evan Humphrey at the lower end of Nagawicka Lake, and relative to the use of the waters of said Bark River and Nagawicka Lake, all in the county of Waukesha, Wisconsin. In determining the scope of this act, the court said: Plaintiff claims that by the enactment of this law the legislature admitted liability on the part of the state for the acts of its officers, and that the suit now stands just as it would stand between private parties. It is difficult to see how the act does, or was intended to do, more than remove the state's immunity from suit. It simply gives authority to commence suit for the purpose of settling plaintiff's controversies with the estate. Nowhere in the act is there a whisper or suggestion that the court or courts in the disposition of the suit shall depart from well established principles of law, or that the amount of damages is the only question to be settled. The act opened the door of the court to the plaintiff. It did not pass upon the question of liability, but left the suit just where it would be in the absence of the state's immunity from suit. If the Legislature had intended to change the rule that obtained in this state so long and to declare liability on the part of the state, it would not have left so important a matter to mere inference, but would have done so in express terms. (Murdock Grate Co. vs. Commonwealth, 152 Mass., 28; 24 N.E., 854; 8 L. R. A., 399.) In Denning vs. State (123 Cal., 316), the provisions of the Act of 1893, relied upon and considered, are as follows: All persons who have, or shall hereafter have, claims on contract or for negligence against the state not allowed by the state board of examiners, are hereby authorized, on the terms and conditions herein contained, to bring suit thereon against the state in any of the courts of this state of competent jurisdiction, and prosecute the same to final judgment. The rules of practice in civil cases shall apply to such suits, except as herein otherwise provided. And the court said: This statute has been considered by this court in at least two cases, arising under different facts, and in both it was held that said statute did not create any liability or cause of action against the state where none existed before, but merely gave an additional remedy to enforce such liability as would have existed if the

statute had not been enacted. (Chapman vs. State, 104 Cal., 690; 43 Am. St. Rep., 158; Melvin vs. State, 121 Cal., 16.) A statute of Massachusetts enacted in 1887 gave to the superior court "jurisdiction of all claims against the commonwealth, whether at law or in equity," with an exception not necessary to be here mentioned. In construing this statute the court, in Murdock Grate Co. vs. Commonwealth (152 Mass., 28), said: The statute we are discussing disclose no intention to create against the state a new and heretofore unrecognized class of liabilities, but only an intention to provide a judicial tribunal where well recognized existing liabilities can be adjudicated. In Sipple vs. State (99 N. Y., 284), where the board of the canal claims had, by the terms of the statute of New York, jurisdiction of claims for damages for injuries in the management of the canals such as the plaintiff had sustained, Chief Justice Ruger remarks: "It must be conceded that the state can be made liable for injuries arising from the negligence of its agents or servants, only by force of some positive statute assuming such liability." It being quite clear that Act No. 2457 does not operate to extend the Government's liability to any cause not previously recognized, we will now examine the substantive law touching the defendant's liability for the negligent acts of its officers, agents, and employees. Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code reads: The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. The supreme court of Spain in defining the scope of this paragraph said: That the obligation to indemnify for damages which a third person causes to another by his fault or negligence is based, as is evidenced by the same Law 3, Title 15, Partida 7, on that the person obligated, by his own fault or negligence, takes part in the act or omission of the third party who caused the damage. It follows therefrom that the state, by virtue of such provisions of law, is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office, because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of public service and in the appointment of its agents; on the contrary, we must presuppose all foresight humanly possible on its part in order that each branch of service serves the general weal an that of private persons interested in its operation. Between these latter and the state, therefore, no relations of a private nature governed by the civil law can arise except in a case where the state acts as a judicial person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations. (Supreme Court of Spain, January 7, 1898; 83 Jur. Civ., 24.) That the Civil Code in chapter 2, title 16, book 4, regulates the obligations which arise out of fault or negligence; and whereas in the first article thereof. No. 1902, where the general principle is laid down that where a person who by an act or omission causes damage to another through fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage so done, reference is made to acts or omissions of the persons who directly or indirectly cause the damage, the following articles refers to this persons and imposes an identical obligation upon those who maintain fixed relations of authority and superiority over the authors of the damage, because the law presumes that in consequence of such relations the evil caused by their own fault or negligence is imputable to them. This legal presumption gives way to proof, however, because, as held in the last paragraph of article 1903, responsibility for acts of third persons ceases when the persons mentioned in said article prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage, and among these persons, called upon to answer in a direct and not a subsidiary manner, are found, in addition to the mother or the father in a proper case, guardians and owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise, the state, but not always, except when it acts through the agency of a special agent, doubtless because and only in this case, the fault or negligence, which is the original basis of this kind of objections, must be presumed to lie with the state. That although in some cases the state might by virtue of the general principle set forth in article 1902 respond for all the damage that is occasioned to private parties by orders or resolutions which by fault or negligence are made by branches of the central administration acting in the name and representation of the state itself and as an external expression of its sovereignty in the exercise of its executive powers, yet said article is not applicable in the case of damages said to have been occasioned to the petitioners by an executive official, acting in the exercise of his powers, in proceedings to enforce the collections of certain property taxes owing by the owner of the property which they hold in sublease. That the responsibility of the state is limited by article 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a special agent (and a special agent, in the sense in which these words are employed, is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official) so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the acting administration and who on his own responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his

office and which are regulated by law and the regulations." (Supreme Court of Spain, May 18, 1904; 98 Jur. Civ., 389, 390.) That according to paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code and the principle laid down in a decision, among others, of the 18th of May, 1904, in a damage case, the responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. Consequently, the trial court in not so deciding and in sentencing the said entity to the payment of damages, caused by an official of the second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infringed the provisions of articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code. (Supreme Court of Spain, July 30, 1911; 122 Jur. Civ., 146.) It is, therefore, evidence that the State (the Government of the Philippine Islands) is only liable, according to the above quoted decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, for the acts of its agents, officers and employees when they act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903, supra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from must be reversed, without costs in this instance. Whether the Government intends to make itself legally liable for the amount of damages above set forth, which the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the negligent acts of one of its employees, by legislative enactment and by appropriating sufficient funds therefor, we are not called upon to determine. This matter rests solely with the Legislature and not with the courts. Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-11897 October 31, 1964

FERNANDO A. FROILAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING COMPANY, defendant-appellant, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, and COMPANIA MARITIMA, intervenors-appellees. Sycip, Salazar & Associates and Enrique Fernando & Emma Quisumbing-Fernando for defendant-appellant. The Government Corporate Counsel for intervenors-appellees. Rafael Dinglasan for plaintiff-appellee. BARRERA, J.: On March 7, 1947, Fernando A. Froilan purchased from the Shipping Administration a boat described as MV/FS 197 for the sum of P200,000.00, with a down payment of P50,000,00. To secure payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price, a mortgage was constituted on the vessel in favor of the Shipping Administration in a contract which provides, among others, the following: In the event that the FIRST PARTY should elect to exercise its rights to rescind under the terms of this contract, it shall have the right to take possession of the vessel herein sold in the condition that it is at the time of rescission but in no case in a worse condition than when originally delivered to the second party, ordinary wear and tear excepted and in case at the time of rescission the condition of the vessel is not satisfactory to the FIRST PARTY, it shall have the right to have the vessel reconditioned, repaired, drydocked at the expense of the SECOND PARTY. The same right is hereby granted to the FIRST PARTY in case the SECOND PARTY should for any reason refuse or fail to comply with this condition of sale and return the vessel herein sold in a condition not satisfactory to the FIRST PARTY. The right of rescission shall be considered as a cumulative remedy granted to the FIRST PARTY and shall not in any way prejudice his right to demand immediate and complete payment of the purchase price of the vessel under the terms herein provided, and to demand and collect from the SECOND PARTY such damages caused by the non-compliance with this contract. This contract was duly approved by the President of the Philippines. Froilan appeared to have defaulted in spite of demands, not only in the payment of the first installment on the unpaid balance of the purchase price and the interest thereon when they fell due, but also failed in his express undertaking to pay the premiums on the insurance coverage of the vessel, obliging the Shipping Administration to advance such

payment to the insurance company. Consequently, the Shipping Administration requested the Commissioner of Customs on June 1, 1948 to refuse clearance on the vessel and the voyage thereof was ordered suspended. Thereafter, Froilan asked for a reconsideration of the action taken by the Shipping Administration, claiming that his failure to pay the required installments was due to the fact that he was awaiting the decision of the President on the petition of the shipowners for an extension of the period of payment of the purchased vessels, which petition was favorably acted upon. On July 3, 1948, the Shipping Administration and Froilan entered into an agreement whereby the latter undertook to liquidate immediately all of his outstanding accounts, including the insurance premiums, within 30 days, and have the vessel overhauled, and promised that in case of his default, he shall "waive, any formal notice of demand and to redeliver the said vessel peaceably and amicably without any other proceedings" (Exh. 39). Again, Froilan failed to settle his accounts within the prescribed period, thus, the Shipping Administration threatened to rescind the contract unless payment be immediately made. On August 28, 1948, upon Froilan's request, the Shipping Administration agreed to release the vessel on condition that the same would be overhauled and repaired and the accrued interest on the first installment would be paid. The Administration also allowed the mortgagor to pay his overdue accounts, amounting now to P48,500.00 in monthly installments, with warming that in case of further default, it would immediately repossess the vessel and rescind the contract. Froilan failed to pay. On January 17, 1949, the Shipping Administration required him to return the vessel or else file a bond for P25,000.00 in five days. In a letter dated January 28, 1949, Froilan requested that the period for filing the bond be extended to February 15, 1949, upon the express condition and understanding that: ... . If I fail to file the required bond on the said date, February 15, 1949, to the satisfaction of the Shipping Administration, I am willing to relinquish and I do hereby relinquish any and all rights I have or may have on the said vessel including any payments made thereon to the Shipping Administration, without prejudice to other rights the Shipping Administration may have against me under the contract of sale executed in my favor. I wish to reiterate that if I fail to file the bond within the period I have requested, any and all rights I have on the vessel and any payments made to the Shipping Administration shall be considered automatically forfeited in favor of the Shipping Administration and the ownership of the said vessel will be as it is hereby automatically transferred to the Shipping Administration which is then hereby authorized to take immediate possession of said vessel. (Exh. 66) This letter of Froilan was submitted by the General Manager of the Shipping Administration to the board of directors for proper consideration. By resolution of January 31, 1949, the petition was granted subject specifically to the conditions set forth therein. Froilan again failed to make good his promises. Hence, on February 18, 1949, the General Manager of the Shipping Ad-ministration wrote the Collector of Customs of Manila, advising the latter that the Shipping Administration, by action of its board, terminated the contract with Froilan, and requesting the suspension of the clearance of the boat effective that date (Exh. 70). On February 21, 1949, the General Manager directed its officers, Capt. Laconico and others, to take immediate possession of the vessel and to suspend the unloading of all cargoes on the same until the owners thereof made the corresponding arrangement with the Shipping Administration. Pursuant to these instructions, the boat was, not only actually repossessed, but the title thereto was registered again in the name of the Shipping Administration, thereby re-transferring the ownership thereof to the government. On February 22, 1949, Pan Oriental Shipping Co., hereinafter referred to as Pan Oriental, offered to charter said vessel FS-197 for a monthly rent of P3,000.00. Because the government was then spending for the guarding of the boat and subsistence of the crew-members since repossession, the Shipping Administration on April 1, 1949, accepted Pan Oriental's offer "in principle" subject to the condition that the latter shall cause the repair of the vessel, advancing the cost of labor and drydocking thereof, and the Shipping Administration to furnish the necessary spare parts. In accordance with this charter contract, the vessel was delivered to the possession of Pan Oriental. In the meantime, or on February 22, 1949, Froilan tried to explain his failure to comply with the obligations he assumed and asked that he be given another extension up to March 15, 1949 to file the necessary bond. Then on March 8, Froilan offered to pay all his overdue accounts. However, as he failed to fulfill even these offers made by him in these two communications, the Shipping Administration denied his petition for reconsideration (of the rescission of the contract) on March 22, 1949. It should be noted that while his petition for reconsideration was denied on March 22, it does not appear when he formally formulated his appeal. In the meantime, as already stated, the boat has being repossessed by the Shipping Administration and the title thereto re-registered in the name of the government, and delivered to the Pan Oriental in virtue of the charter agreement. On June 2, 1949, Froilan protested to the President against the charter of the vessel. On the same date, the Executive Office advised the Administration and the Commissioner of Customs not to dispose of the vessel in favor of another party pending final decision by the President on the appeal of Froilan (Exhs. 93-A and 93-D). But since the vessel was already cleared in favor of Pan Oriental prior to the receipt of the foregoing communication, and allegedly in order to prevent its being made answerable for damages, the General

Manager of the Shipping Administration advised the Collector of Customs not to suspend the voyage of the vessel pending final decision on the appeal of Froilan. Similar manifestation, to allow the Pan Oriental's operation of the vessel without prejudice to whatever action the President may take in the case, was also made by the Administration to the Executive Secretary. On June 4, 1949, the Shipping Administration and the Pan Oriental formalized the charter agreement and signed a bareboat contract with option to purchase, containing the following pertinent provisions: III. CHARTER HIRE, TIME OF PAYMENT. The CHARTERER shall pay to the owner a monthly charter hire of THREE THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS from date of delivery of the vessel, payable in advance on or before the 5th of every current month until the return of the vessel to OWNER or purchase of the vessel by CHARTERER. XII. RIGHT OF OPTION TO PURCHASE. The right of option to purchase the vessel at the price of P150,000.00 plus the amount expended for its present repairs is hereby granted to the CHARTERER within 120 days from the execution of this Contract, unless otherwise extended by the OWNER. This right shall be deemed exercised only if, before the expiration of the said period, or its extension by the OWNER the CHARTERER completes the payment, including any amount paid as Charter hire, of a total sum of not less than twenty-five percentum (25%) of said price of the vessel. The period of option may be extended by the OWNER without in any way affecting the other provisions, stipulations, and terms of this contract. If, for any reason whatsoever, the CHARTERER fails to exercise its option to purchase within the period stipulated, or within the extension thereof by the OWNER, its right of option to purchase shall be deemed terminated, without prejudice to the continuance of the Charter Party provisions of this contract. The right to dispose of the vessel or terminate the Charter Party at its discretion is reserved to the OWNER. XIII. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE VESSEL. After the CHARTERER has exercised his right of option as provided in the preceding paragraph (XII), the vessel shall be deemed conditionally sold to the purchaser, but the ownership thereof shall not be deemed transferred unless and until all the price of the vessel, together with the interests thereon, and any other obligation due and payable to the OWNER under this contract, have been fully paid by the CHARTERER. xxx xxx xxx

XXI. APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT. This contract shall take effect only upon approval of His Excellency, the President. On September 6, 1949, the Cabinet revoked the cancellation of Froilan's contract of sale and restored to him all his rights thereunder, on condition that he would give not less than P10,000.00 to settle partially his overdue accounts and that reimbursement of the expenses incurred for the repair and drydocking of the vessel performed by Pan Oriental was to be made in accordance with future adjustment between him and the Shipping Administration (Exh. I). Later, pursuant to this reservation, Froilan's request to the Executive Secretary that the Administration advance the payment of the expenses incurred by Pan Oriental in the drydocking and repair of the vessel, was granted on condition that Froilan assume to pay the same and file a bond to cover said undertaking (Exh. 111). On September 7, 1949, the formal bareboat charter with option to purchase filed on June 4, 1949, in favor of the Pan Oriental was returned to the General Manager of the Shipping Administration without action (not disapproval), only because of the Cabinet resolution of September 6, 1949 restoring Froilan to his rights under the conditions set forth therein, namely, the payment of P10,000.00 to settle partially his overdue accounts and the filing of a bond to guarantee the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Pan Oriental in the drydocking and repair of the vessel. But Froilan again failed to comply with these conditions. And so the Cabinet, considering Froilan's consistent failure to comply with his obligations, including those imposed in the resolution of September 6, 1949, resolved to reconsider said previous resolution restoring him to his previous rights. And, in a letter dated December 3, 1949, the Executive Secretary authorized the Administration to continue its charter contract with Pan Oriental in respect to FS197 and enforce whatever rights it may still have under the original contract with Froilan (Exh. 188). Froilan, for his part, petitioned anew for a reconsideration of this action of the Cabinet, claiming that other ship purchasers, including the President-Treasurer of the Pan Oriental himself, had also defaulted in payment and yet no action to rescind their contracts had been taken against them. He also offered to make a cash partial payment of P10,000.00 on his overdue accounts and reimburse Pan Oriental of all its necessary expense on the vessel. Pan Oriental, however, not only expressed its unwillingness to relinquish possession of the vessel, but also tendered the sum of P15,000.00 which, together with its alleged expenses already made on the vessel, cover 25% of the cost of the vessel, as provided in the option granted in the bareboat contract (Exh. 122). This amount was accepted by the Administration as deposit, subject to the final determination of Froilan's appeal by the President. The Executive Secretary was also informed of the exercise by Pan Oriental of said option to purchase.

On August 25, 1950, the Cabinet resolved once more to restore Froilan to his rights under the original contract of sale, on condition that he shall pay the sum of P10,000.00 upon delivery of the vessel to him, said amount to be credited to his outstanding accounts; that he shall continue paying the remaining installments due, and that he shall assume the expenses incurred for the repair and drydocking of the vessel (Exh. 134). Pan Oriental protested to this restoration of Froilan's rights under the contract of sale, for the reason that when the vessel was delivered to it, the Shipping Administration had authority to dispose of the said property, Froilan having already relinquished whatever rights he may have thereon. Froilan paid the required cash of P10,000.00, and as Pan Oriental refused to surrender possession of the vessel, he filed an action for replevin in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 13196) to recover possession thereof and to have him declared the rightful owner of said property. Upon plaintiff's filing a bond of P400,000.00, the court ordered the seizure of the vessel from Pan Oriental and its delivery to the plaintiff. Pan Oriental tried to question the validity of this order in a petition for certiorari filed in this Court (G.R. No. L-4577), but the same was dismissed for lack of merit by resolution of February 22, 1951. Defendant accordingly filed an answer, denying the averments of the complaint. The Republic of the Philippines, having been allowed to intervene in the proceeding, also prayed for the possession of the vessel in order that the chattel mortgage constituted thereon may be foreclosed. Defendant Pan Oriental resisted said intervention, claiming to have a better right to the possession of the vessel by reason of a valid and subsisting contract in its favor, and of its right of retention, in view of the expenses it had incurred for the repair of the said vessel. As counterclaim, defendant demanded of the intervenor to comply with the latter's obligation to deliver the vessel pursuant to the provisions of the charter contract. Thereafter, and upon plaintiff's presenting proof that he had made payment to the intervenor Republic of the Philippines, of the sum of P162,576.96, covering the insurance premiums, unpaid balance of the purchase price of the vessel and interest thereon, the lower court by order of February 8, 1952, dismissed the complaint in intervention on the ground that the claim or demand therein had already been released. Said dismissal, however, was made without prejudice to the determination of defendant's right, and that the release and cancellation of the chattel mortgage did not "prejudge the question involved between the plaintiff and the defendant which is still the subject of determination in this case." In view of the dismissal of its complaint, intervenor Republic of the Philippines also moved for the dismissal of defendant's counterclaims against it, which was granted by the court. On appeal by Pan Oriental to this Court (G.R. No. L-6060), said order was reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Subsequently, Compaia Maritima, as purchaser of the vessel from Froilan, was allowed to intervene in the proceedings (in the lower court), said intervenor taking common cause with the plaintiff Froilan. In its answer to the complaint in intervention, defendant set up a counterclaim for damages in the sum of P50,000.00, alleging that plaintiff secured the Cabinet resolutions and the writ of replevin, resulting in its deprivation of possession of the, vessel, at the instigation and inducement of Compaia Maritima. This counterclaim was denied by both plaintiff and intervenor Maritima. On September 28, 1956, the lower court rendered a decision upholding Froilan's (and Compaia Maritima's) right to the ownership and possession of the FS-197. It was ruled that Froilan's violations of the conditions of the contract of sale in his favor did not automatically deprive him of his right of ownership of the vessel, which passed to him upon execution of the contract, but merely gave rise to the Shipping Administration's right either to foreclose the mortgage or rescind the contract by court action. As the Shipping Administration failed to avail itself of any of these remedies, Froilan's right of ownership remained unaffected. And the subsequent resolutions of the Cabinet, restoring him to his rights under the said contract, reaffirmed the same. The charter contract between the Shipping Administration and defendant was declared null and void, not only because the former could not have legally bound the vessel, but also due to the fact that said agreement has not been perfected for lack of approval by the President of the Philippines. And, even assuming that the said charter contract was valid, the lower court held that, as the owner (Republic of the Philippines) under the same agreement was given the right to terminate the charter or dispose of the vessel anytime, the action of the Cabinet in cancelling or withdrawing the rescission of Froilan's contract, had the effect of terminating the charter agreement with the defendant. The court also dismissed (1) defendant's counterclaims against plaintiff Froilan and intervenor Compaia Maritima, on the ground that it (defendant) was a possessor in bad faith, and consequently, not entitled to damages; (2) plaintiff's counterclaims against defendant, for the reason that the same should have been directed against intervenor Republic of the Philippines; and (3) defendant's counterclaims said intervenor Republic, on the ground that the order dismissing the complaint in intervention had already become final and it was materially impossible for the latter to secure possession of the vessel. From this decision, Pan Oriental brought the instant appeal. Contrary to appellant's contention, the ruling of the lower court that under the contract of sale with mortgage, ownership of the vessel passed to Froilan, upon delivery of the property to the latter, must be sustained. It is to be noted that unlike in the charter contract where it was specifically prescribed that ownership of the vessel shall be transferred to the vendee only upon full payment of the purchase price, no similar provision appears in the contract of sale in favor of Froilan. In the absence of stipulation to the contrary, the ownership of the thing sold passes to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof (Art. 1477, new Civil Code). It is for this reason that Froilan was able to constitute a mortgage on the vessel in favor of the Administration, to secure payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price.

There is no gainsaying the fact that there was continuous violation by Froilan of the terms of said contract of sale. The records conclusively show that notwithstanding the numerous opportunities given him, Froilan had been remiss in the fulfillment of his obligations thereunder. Nevertheless, the lower court upheld his allegation that the Administration may not legally rescind the contract without filing the corresponding complaint in court. Under Article 11911 of the Civil Code, in case of reciprocal obligations, the power to rescind the contract where a party incurs in default, is impliedly given to the injured party. Appellee maintains however, that the law contemplates of rescission of contract by judicial action and not a unilateral act by the injured party; consequently, the action of the Shipping Administration contravenes said provision of the law. This is not entirely correct, because there is also nothing in the law that prohibits the parties from entering into agreement that violation of the terms of the contract would cause cancellation thereof, even without court intervention. In other words, it is not always necessary for the injured party to resort to court for rescission of the contract. As already held2judicial action is needed where there, is absence of special provision in the contract granting to a party the right of rescission. In the instant case, while it may be true that the contract of sale did not expressly give to the mortgagee the right to cancel the agreement it was, nevertheless, provided therein that said party may rescind the contract as it may see fit in case of breach of the terms thereof by the mortgagor. Taking into account the promises, waivers and representations made by Froilan, to the extent that he agreed to the automatic transfer of ownership of the vessel to the Administration, should he fall to fulfill what was incumbent upon him, which did happen, the rescission of the contract without judicial action is proper. The next question to be determined is whether there had been a valid and enforceable charter contract in favor of appellant Pan Oriental, and what was the effect thereon of the subsequent restoration to Froilan by the Cabinet, of his rights under the original contract of sale with mortgage. It is not disputed that appellant Pan Oriental took possession of the vessel in question after it had been repossessed by the Shipping Administration and title thereto reacquired by the government, and operated the same from June 2, 1949 after it had repaired the vessel until it was dispossessed of the property on February 3, 1951, in virtue of a bareboat charter contract entered into between said company and the Shipping Administration. In the same agreement, appellant as charterer, was given the option to purchase the vessel, which may be exercised upon payment of a certain amount within a specified period. The President and Treasurer of the appellant company, tendered the stipulated initial payment on January 16, 1950. Appellant now contends that having exercised the option, the subsequent Cabinet resolutions restoring Froilan's rights on the vessel violated its existing rights over the same property. To the contention of plaintiff Froilan that the charter contract never became effective because it never received presidential approval, as required therein, Pan Oriental answers that the letter of the Executive Secretary dated December 3, 1949 (Exh. 118), authorizing the Shipping Administration to continue its charter contract with appellant, satisfies such requirement (of presidential approval). It is to be noted, however, that said letter was signed by the Executive Secretary only and not under authority of the President. The same, therefore, cannot be considered to have attached unto the charter contract the required consent of the Chief Executive for its validity. Upon the other hand, the Cabinet resolutions purporting to restore Froilan to his former rights under the deed of sale, cannot also be considered as an act of the President which is specifically required in all contracts relating to these vessels (Executive Order No. 31, series of 1946). Actions of the Cabinet are merely recommendatory or advisory in character. Unless afterwards specifically adopted by the President as his own executive act, they cannot be considered as equivalent to the act of approval of the President expressly required in cases involving disposition of these vessels. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the resulting situation is that neither Froilan nor the Pan Oriental holds a valid contract over the vessel. However, since the intervenor Shipping Administration, representing the government practically ratified its proposed contract with Froilan by receiving the full consideration of the sale to the latter, for which reason the complaint in intervention was dismissed as to Froilan, and since Pan Oriental has no capacity to question this actuation of the Shipping Administration because it had no valid contract in its favor, the decision of the lower court adjudicating the vessel to FroiIan and its successor Compaia Maritima, must be sustained. Nevertheless, under the circumstances already adverted to, Pan Oriental cannot be considered a possessor in bad faith until after the institution of the instant case. However, since it is not disputed that said appellant made useful and necessary expenses on the vessel, appellant is entitled to the refund of such expenses with the right to retain the vessel until he has been reimbursed therefor (Art. 546, Civil Code). As it is by the concerted acts of defendants and intervenor Republic of the Philippines that appellant was deprived of the possession of the vessel over which appellant had a lien for his expenses, appellees Froilan, Compaia Maritima, and the Republic of the Philippines3are declared liable for the reimbursement to appellant of its legitimate expenses, as allowed by law, with legal interest from the time of disbursement. Modified in this manner, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without costs. Case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in the matter of expenses. So ordered. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES E. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIER,petitioners, vs. HON. V. M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO., INC., respondents. Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Manalo & Feliciano Law for petitioners. Albert, Vergara, Benares, Perias & Dominguez Law Office for respondents.

ABAD SANTOS, J.: This is a petition to review, set aside certain orders and restrain the respondent judge from trying Civil Case No. 779M of the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal. The factual background is as follows: At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States. Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the following projects 1. Repair offender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay, Philippines. 2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company. The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company alleges that the United States had accepted its bids because "A request to confirm a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant United States' bidding practices." (Rollo, p. 30.) The truth of this allegation has not been tested because the case has not reached the trial stage.] In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed by Wilham I. Collins, Director, Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Pacific, Department of the Navy of the United States, who is one of the petitioners herein. The letter said that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay. The letter further said that the projects had been awarded to third parties. In the abovementioned Civil Case No. 779-M, the company sued the United States of America and Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert Gohier all members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in the event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay damages. The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third parties for work on the projects. The defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of questioning the jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the complaint and the persons of defendants, the subject matter of the complaint being acts and omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant United States of America, a foreign sovereign which has not given her consent to this suit or any other suit for the causes of action asserted in the complaint." (Rollo, p. 50.) Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which included an opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The company opposed the motion. The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain perpetually the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. The petition is highly impressed with merit.

The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperil The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other states in western Europe. (See Coquia and Defensor Santiago, Public International Law, pp. 207-209 [1984].) The respondent judge recognized the restrictive doctrine of State immunity when he said in his Order denying the defendants' (now petitioners) motion: " A distinction should be made between a strictly governmental function of the sovereign state from its private, proprietary or non- governmental acts (Rollo, p. 20.) However, the respondent judge also said: "It is the Court's considered opinion that entering into a contract for the repair of wharves or shoreline is certainly not a governmental function altho it may partake of a public nature or character. As aptly pointed out by plaintiff's counsel in his reply citing the ruling in the case of Lyons, Inc., [104 Phil. 594 (1958)], and which this Court quotes with approval, viz.: It is however contended that when a sovereign state enters into a contract with a private person, the state can be sued upon the theory that it has descended to the level of an individual from which it can be implied that it has given its consent to be sued under the contract. ... xxx xxx xxx We agree to the above contention, and considering that the United States government, through its agency at Subic Bay, entered into a contract with appellant for stevedoring and miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay Area, a U.S. Naval Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action before our courts for any contractual liability that that political entity may assume under the contract. The trial court, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain this case ... (Rollo, pp. 20-21.) The reliance placed on Lyons by the respondent judge is misplaced for the following reasons: In Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. The United States of America, supra, plaintiff brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila to collect several sums of money on account of a contract between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over defendant and over the subject matter of the action. The court granted the motion on the grounds that: (a) it had no jurisdiction over the defendant who did not give its consent to the suit; and (b) plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided in the contract. The order of dismissal was elevated to this Court for review. In sustaining the action of the lower court, this Court said: It appearing in the complaint that appellant has not complied with the procedure laid down in Article XXI of the contract regarding the prosecution of its claim against the United States Government, or, stated differently, it has failed to first exhaust its administrative remedies against said Government, the lower court acted properly in dismissing this case.(At p. 598.) It can thus be seen that the statement in respect of the waiver of State immunity from suit was purely gratuitous and, therefore, obiter so that it has no value as an imperative authority. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes. That the correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by a State but the legal nature of the act is shown in Syquia vs. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 (1949). In that case the plaintiffs leased three apartment buildings to the United States of America for the use of its military officials. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the premises on the ground that the term of the leases had expired. They also asked for increased rentals until the apartments shall have been vacated. The defendants who were armed forces officers of the United States moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction in the part of the court. The Municipal Court of Manila granted the motion to dismiss; sustained by the Court of First Instance, the plaintiffs went to this Court for review on certiorari. In denying the petition, this Court said: On the basis of the foregoing considerations we are of the belief and we hold that the real party defendant in interest is the Government of the United States of America; that any judgment for back or Increased rentals or damages will have to be paid not by defendants Moore and Tillman and their

64 co-defendants but by the said U.S. Government. On the basis of the ruling in the case of Land vs. Dollar already cited, and on what we have already stated, the present action must be considered as one against the U.S. Government. It is clear hat the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The U.S. Government has not , given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles of law behind this rule are so elementary and of such general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof. (At p. 323.) In Syquia,the United States concluded contracts with private individuals but the contracts notwithstanding the States was not deemed to have given or waived its consent to be sued for the reason that the contracts were forjure imperii and not for jure gestionis. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent judge are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs against the private respondent. Teehankee, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, * Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur. Fernando, C.J., took no part. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-55963 December 1, 1989 SPOUSES JOSE FONTANILLA AND VIRGINIA FONTANILLA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE INOCENCIO D. MALIAMAN and NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, respondents. G.R. No. L-61045 December 1, 1989 NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, appellant, vs. SPOUSES JOSE FONTANILLA and VIRGINIA FONTANILLA, appellees. Cecilio V. Suarez, Jr. for Spouses Fontanilla. Felicisimo C. Villaflor for NIA.

PARAS, J.: In G.R. No. L-55963, the petition for review on certiorari seeks the affirmance of the decision dated March 20, 1980 of the then Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch VIII, at San Jose City and its modification with respect to the denial of petitioner's claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. In G.R. No. 61045, respondent National Irrigation Administration seeks the reversal of the aforesaid decision of the lower court. The original appeal of this case before the Court of Appeals was certified to this Court and in the resolution of July 7, 1982, it was docketed with the aforecited number. And in the resolution of April 3, this case was consolidated with G.R. No. 55963. It appears that on August 21, 1976 at about 6:30 P.M., a pickup owned and operated by respondent National Irrigation Administration, a government agency bearing Plate No. IN-651, then driven officially by Hugo Garcia, an employee of said agency as its regular driver, bumped a bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla, son of herein petitioners, and Restituto Deligo, at Maasin, San Jose City along the Maharlika Highway. As a result of the impact, Francisco Fontanilla and Restituto Deligo were injured and brought to the San Jose City Emergency Hospital for treatment. Fontanilla was later transferred to the Cabanatuan Provincial Hospital where he died. Garcia was then a regular driver of respondent National Irrigation Administration who, at the time of the accident, was a licensed professional driver and who qualified for employment as such regular driver of respondent after

having passed the written and oral examinations on traffic rules and maintenance of vehicles given by National Irrigation Administration authorities. The within petition is thus an off-shot of the action (Civil Case No. SJC-56) instituted by petitioners-spouses on April 17, 1978 against respondent NIA before the then Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch VIII at San Jose City, for damages in connection with the death of their son resulting from the aforestated accident. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment on March 20, 1980 which directed respondent National Irrigation Administration to pay damages (death benefits) and actual expenses to petitioners. The dispositive portion of the decision reads thus: . . . . . Judgment is here rendered ordering the defendant National Irrigation Administration to pay to the heirs of the deceased P12,000.00 for the death of Francisco Fontanilla; P3,389.00 which the parents of the deceased had spent for the hospitalization and burial of the deceased Francisco Fontanilla; and to pay the costs. (Brief for the petitioners spouses Fontanilla, p. 4; Rollo, p. 132) Respondent National Irrigation Administration filed on April 21, 1980, its motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision which respondent trial court denied in its Order of June 13, 1980. Respondent National Irrigation Administration thus appealed said decision to the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. No. 67237- R) where it filed its brief for appellant in support of its position. Instead of filing the required brief in the aforecited Court of Appeals case, petitioners filed the instant petition with this Court. The sole issue for the resolution of the Court is: Whether or not the award of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees is legally proper in a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict which resulted in the death of the son of herein petitioners. Petitioners allege: 1. The award of moral damages is specifically allowable. under paragraph 3 of Article 2206 of the New Civil Code which provides that the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Should moral damages be granted, the award should be made to each of petitioners-spouses individually and in varying amounts depending upon proof of mental and depth of intensity of the same, which should not be less than P50,000.00 for each of them. 2. The decision of the trial court had made an impression that respondent National Irrigation Administration acted with gross negligence because of the accident and the subsequent failure of the National Irrigation Administration personnel including the driver to stop in order to give assistance to the, victims. Thus, by reason of the gross negligence of respondent, petitioners become entitled to exemplary damages under Arts. 2231 and 2229 of the New Civil Code. 3. Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees, the amount of which (20%) had been sufficiently established in the hearing of May 23, 1979. 4. This petition has been filed only for the purpose of reviewing the findings of the lower court upon which the disallowance of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees was based and not for the purpose of disturbing the other findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Solicitor General, taking up the cudgels for public respondent National Irrigation Administration, contends thus: 1. The filing of the instant petition is rot proper in view of the appeal taken by respondent National Irrigation Administration to the Court of Appeals against the judgment sought to be reviewed. The focal issue raised in respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeals involves the question as to whether or not the driver of the vehicle that bumped the victims was negligent in his operation of said vehicle. It thus becomes necessary that before petitioners' claim for moral and exemplary damages could be resolved, there should first be a finding of negligence on the part of respondent's employee-driver. In this regard, the Solicitor General alleges that the trial court decision does not categorically contain such finding. 2. The filing of the "Appearance and Urgent Motion For Leave to File Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief" dated December 28, 1981 by petitioners in the appeal (CA-G.R. No. 67237-R; and G. R. No.61045) of the respondent National Irrigation Administration before the Court of Appeals, is an explicit admission of said petitioners that the herein petition, is not proper. Inconsistent procedures are manifest because while petitioners question the findings of fact in the Court of Appeals, they present only the questions of law before this Court which posture confirms their admission of the facts.

3. The fact that the parties failed to agree on whether or not negligence caused the vehicular accident involves a question of fact which petitioners should have brought to the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period. Hence, the decision of the trial court has become final as to the petitioners and for this reason alone, the petition should be dismissed. 4. Respondent Judge acted within his jurisdiction, sound discretion and in conformity with the law. 5. Respondents do not assail petitioners' claim to moral and exemplary damages by reason of the shock and subsequent illness they suffered because of the death of their son. Respondent National Irrigation Administration, however, avers that it cannot be held liable for the damages because it is an agency of the State performing governmental functions and driver Hugo Garcia was a regular driver of the vehicle, not a special agent who was performing a job or act foreign to his usual duties. Hence, the liability for the tortious act should. not be borne by respondent government agency but by driver Garcia who should answer for the consequences of his act. 6. Even as the trial court touched on the failure or laxity of respondent National Irrigation Administration in exercising due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee, the matter of due diligence is not an issue in this case since driver Garcia was not its special agent but a regular driver of the vehicle. The sole legal question on whether or not petitioners may be entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees can very well be answered with the application of Arts. 2176 and 2180 of theNew Civil Code. Art. 2176 thus provides: Whoever by act omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing cotractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art. 21 80 read as follows: Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even the though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent.; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Art. 2176 shall be applicable. The liability of the State has two aspects. namely: 1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only. 2. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer. (p. 961, Civil Code of the Philippines; Annotated, Paras; 1986 Ed. ). In this jurisdiction, the State assumes a limited liability for the damage caused by the tortious acts or conduct of its special agent. Under the aforequoted paragrah 6 of Art. 2180, the State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agents. The State's agent, if a public official, must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental functions. If the State's agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision. (Torts and Damages, Sangco, p. 347, 1984 Ed.) Certain functions and activities, which can be performed only by the government, are more or less generally agreed to be "governmental" in character, and so the State is immune from tort liability. On the other hand, a service which might as well be provided by a private corporation, and particularly when it collects revenues from it, the function is considered a "proprietary" one, as to which there may be liability for the torts of agents within the scope of their employment. The National Irrigation Administration is an agency of the government exercising proprietary functions, by express provision of Rep. Act No. 3601. Section 1 of said Act provides: Section 1. Name and domicile.-A body corporate is hereby created which shall be known as the National Irrigation Administration, hereinafter called the NIA for short, which shall be organized

immediately after the approval of this Act. It shall have its principal seat of business in the City of Manila and shall have representatives in all provinces for the proper conduct of its business. Section 2 of said law spells out some of the NIA's proprietary functions. ThusSec. 2. Powers and objectives.-The NIA shall have the following powers and objectives: (a) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (c) To collect from the users of each irrigation system constructed by it such fees as may be necessary to finance the continuous operation of the system and reimburse within a certain period not less than twenty-five years cost of construction thereof; and (d) To do all such other tthings and to transact all such business as are directly or indirectly necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objectives. Indubitably, the NIA is a government corporation with juridical personality and not a mere agency of the government. Since it is a corporate body performing non-governmental functions, it now becomes liable for the damage caused by the accident resulting from the tortious act of its driver-employee. In this particular case, the NIA assumes the responsibility of an ordinary employer and as such, it becomes answerable for damages. This assumption of liability, however, is predicated upon the existence of negligence on the part of respondent NIA. The negligence referred to here is the negligence of supervision. At this juncture, the matter of due diligence on the part of respondent NIA becomes a crucial issue in determining its liability since it has been established that respondent is a government agency performing proprietary functions and as such, it assumes the posture of an ordinary employer which, under Par. 5 of Art. 2180, is responsible for the damages caused by its employees provided that it has failed to observe or exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of the driver. It will be noted from the assailed decision of the trial court that "as a result of the impact, Francisco Fontanilla wasthrown to a distance 50 meters away from the point of impact while Restituto Deligo was thrown a little bit further away. The impact took place almost at the edge of the cemented portion of the road." (Emphasis supplied,) [page 26, Rollo] The lower court further declared that "a speeding vehicle coming in contact with a person causes force and impact upon the vehicle that anyone in the vehicle cannot fail to notice. As a matter of fact, the impact was so strong as shown by the fact that the vehicle suffered dents on the right side of the radiator guard, the hood, the fender and a crack on the radiator as shown by the investigation report (Exhibit "E"). (Emphasis supplied) [page 29, Rollo] It should be emphasized that the accident happened along the Maharlika National Road within the city limits of San Jose City, an urban area. Considering the fact that the victim was thrown 50 meters away from the point of impact, there is a strong indication that driver Garcia was driving at a high speed. This is confirmed by the fact that the pickup suffered substantial and heavy damage as above-described and the fact that the NIA group was then "in a hurry to reach the campsite as early as possible", as shown by their not stopping to find out what they bumped as would have been their normal and initial reaction. Evidently, there was negligence in the supervision of the driver for the reason that they were travelling at a high speed within the city limits and yet the supervisor of the group, Ely Salonga, failed to caution and make the driver observe the proper and allowed speed limit within the city. Under the situation, such negligence is further aggravated by their desire to reach their destination without even checking whether or not the vehicle suffered damage from the object it bumped, thus showing imprudence and reckelessness on the part of both the driver and the supervisor in the group. Significantly, this Court has ruled that even if the employer can prove the diligence in the selection and supervision (the latter aspect has not been established herein) of the employee, still if he ratifies the wrongful acts, or take no step to avert further damage, the employer would still be liable. (Maxion vs. Manila Railroad Co., 44 Phil. 597). Thus, too, in the case of Vda. de Bonifacio vs. B.L.T. Bus Co. (L-26810, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 618), this Court held that a driver should be especially watchful in anticipation of others who may be using the highway, and his failure to keep a proper look out for reasons and objects in the line to be traversed constitutes negligence. Considering the foregoing, respondent NIA is hereby directed to pay herein petitioners-spouses the amounts of P12,000.00 for the death of Francisco Fontanilla; P3,389.00 for hospitalization and burial expenses of the aforenamed deceased; P30,000.00 as moral damages; P8,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees of 20% of the total award.

SO ORDERED. Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur. Melencio- Herrera (Chairperson,), J., is on leave. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-30671 November 28, 1973 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, and THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, THE CLERK OF COURT, Court of First Instance of Cebu, P. J. KIENER CO., LTD., GAVINO UNCHUAN, AND INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, respondents. Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for petitioner. Andres T. Velarde and Marcelo B. Fernan for respondents.

FERNANDO, J.: The Republic of the Philippines in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding challenges the validity of an order issued by respondent Judge Guillermo P. Villasor, then of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I, 1 declaring a decision final and executory and of an alias writ of execution directed against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines subsequently issued in pursuance thereof, the alleged ground being excess of jurisdiction, or at the very least, grave abuse of discretion. As thus simply and tersely put, with the facts being undisputed and the principle of law that calls for application indisputable, the outcome is predictable. The Republic of the Philippines is entitled to the writs prayed for. Respondent Judge ought not to have acted thus. The order thus impugned and the alias writ of execution must be nullified. In the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines on July 7, 1969, a summary of facts was set forth thus: "7. On July 3, 1961, a decision was rendered in Special Proceedings No. 2156-R in favor of respondents P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino Unchuan, and International Construction Corporation, and against the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award in the amount of P1,712,396.40, subject of Special Proceedings. 8. On June 24, 1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, issued an Order declaring the aforestated decision of July 3, 1961 final and executory, directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City [as well as] Manila to execute the said decision. 9. Pursuant to the said Order dated June 24, 1969, the corresponding Alias Writ of Execution [was issued] dated June 26, 1969, .... 10. On the strength of the afore-mentioned Alias Writ of Execution dated June 26, 1969, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal (respondent herein) served notices of garnishment dated June 28, 1969 with several Banks, specially on the "monies due the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the form of deposits sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the said Writ of Execution"; the Philippine Veterans Bank received the same notice of garnishment on June 30, 1969 .... 11. The funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on deposit with the Banks, particularly, with the Philippine Veterans Bank and the Philippine National Bank [or] their branches are public funds duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel and for maintenance and operations of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as per Certification dated July 3, 1969 by the AFP Controller,..." 2. The paragraph immediately succeeding in such petition then alleged: "12. Respondent Judge, Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, acted in excess of jurisdiction [or] with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of an alias writ of execution against the properties of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, hence, the Alias Writ of Execution and notices of garnishment issued pursuant thereto are null and void." 3 In the answer filed by respondents, through counsel Andres T. Velarde and Marcelo B. Fernan, the facts set forth were admitted with the only qualification being that the total award was in the amount of P2,372,331.40. 4 The Republic of the Philippines, as mentioned at the outset, did right in filing this certiorari and prohibition proceeding. What was done by respondent Judge is not in conformity with the dictates of the Constitution. . It is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept of sovereignty that the state as well as its government is immune from suit unless it gives its consent. It is readily understandable why it must be so. In the classic formulation of Holmes: "A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or

obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." 5 Sociological jurisprudence supplies an answer not dissimilar. So it was indicated in a recent decision, Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Republic of the Philippines, 6 with its affirmation that "a continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted. With the well known propensity on the part of our people to go to court, at the least provocation, the loss of time and energy required to defend against law suits, in the absence of such a basic principle that constitutes such an effective obstacle, could very well be imagined." 7 This fundamental postulate underlying the 1935 Constitution is now made explicit in the revised charter. It is therein expressly provided: "The State may not be sued without its consent." 8 A corollary, both dictated by logic and sound sense from a basic concept is that public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment proceeding even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged. Thus in the recent case ofCommissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, 9 such a well-settled doctrine was restated in the opinion of Justice Teehankee: "The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant's action 'only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution' and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law." 10 Such a principle applies even to an attempted garnishment of a salary that had accrued in favor of an employee. Director of Commerce and Industry v. Concepcion, 11 speaks to that effect. Justice Malcolm as ponente left no doubt on that score. Thus: "A rule which has never been seriously questioned, is that money in the hands of public officers, although it may be due government employees, is not liable to the creditors of these employees in the process of garnishment. One reason is, that the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, may not be sued in its own courts except by express authorization by the Legislature, and to subject its officers to garnishment would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. Another reason is that moneys sought to be garnished, as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing officer of the Government, belong to the latter, although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. And still another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids it." 12 In the light of the above, it is made abundantly clear why the Republic of the Philippines could rightfully allege a legitimate grievance. WHEREFORE, the writs of certiorari and prohibition are granted, nullifying and setting aside both the order of June 24, 1969 declaring executory the decision of July 3, 1961 as well as the alias writ of execution issued thereunder. The preliminary injunction issued by this Court on July 12, 1969 is hereby made permanent. Zaldivar (Chairman), Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur. Barredo, J, took no part. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-61744 June 25, 1984 MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL, BULACAN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge, Branch IV, Baliuag, Bulacan, The PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of Bulacan, MARGARITA D. VDA. DE IMPERIO, ADORACION IMPERIO, RODOLFO IMPERIO, CONRADO IMPERIO, ERNESTO IMPERIO, ALFREDO IMPERIO, CARLOS IMPERIO, JR., JUAN IMPERIO and SPOUSES MARCELO PINEDA and LUCILA PONGCO, respondents. Pascual C. Liatchko for petitioner. The Solicitor General and Marcelo Pineda for respondents.

RELOVA, J.:

In Civil Case No. 604-B, entitled "Margarita D. Vda. de Imperio, et al. vs. Municipal Government of San Miguel, Bulacan, et al.", the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan, on April 28, 1978, rendered judgment holding herein petitioner municipality liable to private respondents, as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Municipal Government of San Miguel Bulacan, represented by Mayor Mar Marcelo G. Aure and its Municipal Treasurer: 1. ordering the partial revocation of the Deed of Donation signed by the deceased Carlos Imperio in favor of the Municipality of San Miguel Bulacan, dated October 27, 1947 insofar as Lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 11 of Subdivision Plan Psd-20831 are concerned, with an aggregate total area of 4,646 square meters, which lots are among those covered and described under TCT No. T-1831 of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan in the name of the Municipal Government of San Miguel Bulacan, 2. ordering the defendant to execute the corresponding Deed of Reconveyance over the aforementioned five lots in favor of the plaintiffs in the proportion of the undivided one-half () share in the name of plaintiffs Margarita D. Vda. de Imperio, Adoracion, Rodolfo, Conrado, Ernesto, Alfredo, Carlos, Jr. and Juan, all surnamed Imperio, and the remaining undivided one-half () share in favor of plaintiffs uses Marcelo E. Pineda and Lucila Pongco; 3. ordering the defendant municipality to pay to the plaintiffs in the proportion mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph the sum of P64,440.00 corresponding to the rentals it has collected from the occupants for their use and occupation of the premises from 1970 up to and including 1975, plus interest thereon at the legal rate from January 1970 until fully paid; 4. ordering the restoration of ownership and possession over the five lots in question in favor of the plaintiffs in the same proportion aforementioned; 5. ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P3,000.00 for attomey's fees; and to pay the cost of suit. The counterclaim of the defendant is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of evidence presented to substantiate the same. SO ORDERED. (pp. 11-12, Rollo) The foregoing judgment became final when herein petitioner's appeal was dismissed due to its failure to file the record on appeal on time. The dismissal was affirmed by the then Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-12118 and by this Court in G.R. No. 59938. Thereafter, herein private respondents moved for issuance of a writ of execution for the satisfaction of the judgment. Respondent judge, on July 27, 1982, issued an order, to wit: Considering that an entry of judgment had already been made on June 14, 1982 in G. R. No. L59938 and; Considering further that there is no opposition to plaintiffs' motion for execution dated July 23, 1983; Let a writ of execution be so issued, as prayed for in the aforestated motion. (p. 10, Rollo) Petitioner, on July 30, 1982, filed a Motion to Quash the writ of execution on the ground that the municipality's property or funds are all public funds exempt from execution. The said motion to quash was, however, denied by the respondent judge in an order dated August 23, 1982 and the alias writ of execution stands in full force and effect. On September 13, 1982, respondent judge issued an order which in part, states: It is clear and evident from the foregoing that defendant has more than enough funds to meet its judgment obligation. Municipal Treasurer Miguel C, Roura of San Miguel, Bulacan and Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan Agustin O. Talavera are therefor hereby ordered to comply with the money judgment rendered by Judge Agustin C. Bagasao against said municipality. In like manner, the municipal authorities of San Miguel, Bulacan are likewise ordered to desist from plaintiffs' legal possession of the property already returned to plaintiffs by virtue of the alias writ of execution. Finally, defendants are hereby given an inextendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this order by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan within which to submit their written compliance, (p. 24, Rollo) When the treasurers (provincial and municipal) failed to comply with the order of September 13, 1982, respondent judge issued an order for their arrest and that they will be release only upon compliance thereof.

Hence, the present petition on the issue whether the funds of the Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan, in the hands of the provincial and municipal treasurers of Bulacan and San Miguel, respectively, are public funds which are exempt from execution for the satisfaction of the money judgment in Civil Case No. 604-B. Well settled is the rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution. The reason for this was explained in the case of Municipality of Paoay vs. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629 "that they are held in trust for the people, intended and used for the accomplishment of the purposes for which municipal corporations are created, and that to subject said properties and public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some instances destroy said purpose." And, in Tantoco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52, it was held that "it is the settled doctrine of the law that not only the public property but also the taxes and public revenues of such corporations Cannot be seized under execution against them, either in the treasury or when in transit to it. Judgments rendered for taxes, and the proceeds of such judgments in the hands of officers of the law, are not subject to execution unless so declared by statute." Thus, it is clear that all the funds of petitioner municipality in the possession of the Municipal Treasurer of San Miguel, as well as those in the possession of the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan, are also public funds and as such they are exempt from execution. Besides, Presidential Decree No. 477, known as "The Decree on Local Fiscal Administration", Section 2 (a), provides: SEC. 2. Fundamental Principles. Local government financial affairs, transactions, and operations shall be governed by the fundamental principles set forth hereunder: (a) No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of a lawful appropriation or other specific statutory authority. xxx xxx xxx Otherwise stated, there must be a corresponding appropriation in the form of an ordinance duly passed by the Sangguniang Bayan before any money of the municipality may be paid out. In the case at bar, it has not been shown that the Sangguniang Bayan has passed an ordinance to this effect. Furthermore, Section 15, Rule 39 of the New Rules of Court, outlines the procedure for the enforcement of money judgment: (a) By levying on all the property of the debtor, whether real or personal, not otherwise exempt from execution, or only on such part of the property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and accruing cost, if he has more than sufficient property for the purpose; (b) By selling the property levied upon; (c) By paying the judgment-creditor so much of the proceeds as will satisfy the judgment and accruing costs; and (d) By delivering to the judgment-debtor the excess, if any, unless otherwise, directed by judgment or order of the court. The foregoing has not been followed in the case at bar. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted and the order of respondent judge, dated July 27, 1982, granting issuance of a writ of execution; the alias writ of execution, dated July 27, 1982; and the order of respondent judge, dated September 13, 1982, directing the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan and the Municipal Treasurer of San Miguel, Bulacan to comply with the money judgments, are SET ASIDE; and respondents are hereby enjoined from implementing the writ of execution. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ,. concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 89898-99 October 1, 1990

MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Judge RTC of Makati, Branch CXLII ADMIRAL FINANCE CREDITORS CONSORTIUM, INC., and SHERIFF SILVINO R. PASTRANA,respondents. Defante & Elegado for petitioner. Roberto B. Lugue for private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors' Consortium, Inc. RESOLUTION

CORTS, J.: The present petition for review is an off-shoot of expropriation proceedings initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makati against private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc., Home Building System & Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. Jo, involving a parcel of land and improvements thereon located at Mayapis St., San Antonio Village, Makati and registered in the name of Arceli P. Jo under TCT No. S-5499. It appears that the action for eminent domain was filed on May 20, 1986, docketed as Civil Case No. 13699. Attached to petitioner's complaint was a certification that a bank account (Account No. S/A 265-537154-3) had been opened with the PNB Buendia Branch under petitioner's name containing the sum of P417,510.00, made pursuant to the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 42. After due hearing where the parties presented their respective appraisal reports regarding the value of the property, respondent RTC judge rendered a decision on June 4, 1987, fixing the appraised value of the property at P5,291,666.00, and ordering petitioner to pay this amount minus the advanced payment of P338,160.00 which was earlier released to private respondent. After this decision became final and executory, private respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. This motion was granted by respondent RTC judge. After issuance of the writ of execution, a Notice of Garnishment dated January 14, 1988 was served by respondent sheriff Silvino R. Pastrana upon the manager of the PNB Buendia Branch. However, respondent sheriff was informed that a "hold code" was placed on the account of petitioner. As a result of this, private respondent filed a motion dated January 27, 1988 praying that an order be issued directing the bank to deliver to respondent sheriff the amount equivalent to the unpaid balance due under the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987. Petitioner filed a motion to lift the garnishment, on the ground that the manner of payment of the expropriation amount should be done in installments which the respondent RTC judge failed to state in his decision. Private respondent filed its opposition to the motion. Pending resolution of the above motions, petitioner filed on July 20, 1988 a "Manifestation" informing the court that private respondent was no longer the true and lawful owner of the subject property because a new title over the property had been registered in the name of Philippine Savings Bank, Inc. (PSB) Respondent RTC judge issued an order requiring PSB to make available the documents pertaining to its transactions over the subject property, and the PNB Buendia Branch to reveal the amount in petitioner's account which was garnished by respondent sheriff. In compliance with this order, PSB filed a manifestation informing the court that it had consolidated its ownership over the property as mortgagee/purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale held on April 20, 1987. After several conferences, PSB and private respondent entered into a compromise agreement whereby they agreed to divide between themselves the compensation due from the expropriation proceedings. Respondent trial judge subsequently issued an order dated September 8, 1988 which: (1) approved the compromise agreement; (2) ordered PNB Buendia Branch to immediately release to PSB the sum of P4,953,506.45 which corresponds to the balance of the appraised value of the subject property under the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987, from the garnished account of petitioner; and, (3) ordered PSB and private respondent to execute the necessary deed of conveyance over the subject property in favor of petitioner. Petitioner's motion to lift the garnishment was denied. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was duly opposed by private respondent. On the other hand, for failure of the manager of the PNB Buendia Branch to comply with the order dated September 8, 1988, private respondent filed two succeeding motions to require the bank manager to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. During the hearings conducted for the above motions, the general manager of the PNB Buendia Branch, a Mr. Antonio Bautista, informed the court that he was still waiting for proper authorization from the PNB head office enabling him to make a disbursement for the amount so ordered. For its part, petitioner contended that its funds at the PNB Buendia Branch could neither be garnished nor levied upon execution, for to do so would result in the disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation required under the law, citing the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Palacio [G.R. No. L-20322, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 899].

Respondent trial judge issued an order dated December 21, 1988 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the ground that the doctrine enunciated in Republic v. Palacio did not apply to the case because petitioner's PNB Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 was an account specifically opened for the expropriation proceedings of the subject property pursuant to Pres. Decree No. 42. Respondent RTC judge likewise declared Mr. Antonio Bautista guilty of contempt of court for his inexcusable refusal to obey the order dated September 8, 1988, and thus ordered his arrest and detention until his compliance with the said order. Petitioner and the bank manager of PNB Buendia Branch then filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which were eventually consolidated. In a decision promulgated on June 28, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed both petitions for lack of merit, sustained the jurisdiction of respondent RTC judge over the funds contained in petitioner's PNB Account No. 265-537154-3, and affirmed his authority to levy on such funds. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals, petitioner now files the present petition for review with prayer for preliminary injunction. On November 20, 1989, the Court resolved to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent RTC judge, respondent sheriff, and their representatives, from enforcing and/or carrying out the RTC order dated December 21, 1988 and the writ of garnishment issued pursuant thereto. Private respondent then filed its comment to the petition, while petitioner filed its reply. Petitioner not only reiterates the arguments adduced in its petition before the Court of Appeals, but also alleges for the first time that it has actually two accounts with the PNB Buendia Branch, to wit: xxx xxx xxx (1) Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 exclusively for the expropriation of the subject property, with an outstanding balance of P99,743.94. (2) Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 for statutory obligations and other purposes of the municipal government, with a balance of P170,098,421.72, as of July 12, 1989. xxx xxx xxx [Petition, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 11-12.] Because the petitioner has belatedly alleged only in this Court the existence of two bank accounts, it may fairly be asked whether the second account was opened only for the purpose of undermining the legal basis of the assailed orders of respondent RTC judge and the decision of the Court of Appeals, and strengthening its reliance on the doctrine that public funds are exempted from garnishment or execution as enunciated in Republic v. Palacio[supra.] At any rate, the Court will give petitioner the benefit of the doubt, and proceed to resolve the principal issues presented based on the factual circumstances thus alleged by petitioner. Admitting that its PNB Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 was specifically opened for expropriation proceedings it had initiated over the subject property, petitioner poses no objection to the garnishment or the levy under execution of the funds deposited therein amounting to P99,743.94. However, it is petitioner's main contention that inasmuch as the assailed orders of respondent RTC judge involved the net amount of P4,965,506.45, the funds garnished by respondent sheriff in excess of P99,743.94, which are public funds earmarked for the municipal government's other statutory obligations, are exempted from execution without the proper appropriation required under the law. There is merit in this contention. The funds deposited in the second PNB Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 are public funds of the municipal government. In this jurisdiction, well-settled is the rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by statute [Republic v. Palacio, supra.; The Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-30098, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 616]. More particularly, the properties of a municipality, whether real or personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality. Municipal revenues derived from taxes, licenses and market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution [See Viuda De Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52 (1926): The Municipality of Paoay, Ilocos Norte v. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629 (1950); Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 61744, June 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 56]. The foregoing rule finds application in the case at bar. Absent a showing that the municipal council of Makati has passed an ordinance appropriating from its public funds an amount corresponding to the balance due under the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987, less the sum of P99,743.94 deposited in Account No. S/A 265-537154-3, no levy under execution may be validly effected on the public funds of petitioner deposited in Account No. S/A 263-530850-7. Nevertheless, this is not to say that private respondent and PSB are left with no legal recourse. Where a municipality fails or refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance, and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefor [SeeViuda De

Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, supra; Baldivia v. Lota, 107 Phil. 1099 (1960); Yuviengco v. Gonzales, 108 Phil. 247 (1960)]. In the case at bar, the validity of the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987 is not disputed by petitioner. No appeal was taken therefrom. For three years now, petitioner has enjoyed possession and use of the subject property notwithstanding its inexcusable failure to comply with its legal obligation to pay just compensation. Petitioner has benefited from its possession of the property since the same has been the site of Makati West High School since the school year 1986-1987. This Court will not condone petitioner's blatant refusal to settle its legal obligation arising from expropriation proceedings it had in fact initiated. It cannot be over-emphasized that, within the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain, . . . [j]ust compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss [Cosculluela v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77765, August 15, 1988, 164 SCRA 393, 400. See also Provincial Government of Sorsogon v. Vda. de Villaroya, G.R. No. 64037, August 27, 1987, 153 SCRA 291]. The State's power of eminent domain should be exercised within the bounds of fair play and justice. In the case at bar, considering that valuable property has been taken, the compensation to be paid fixed and the municipality is in full possession and utilizing the property for public purpose, for three (3) years, the Court finds that the municipality has had more than reasonable time to pay full compensation. WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to ORDER petitioner Municipality of Makati to immediately pay Philippine Savings Bank, Inc. and private respondent the amount of P4,953,506.45. Petitioner is hereby required to submit to this Court a report of its compliance with the foregoing order within a non-extendible period of SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of receipt of this resolution. The order of respondent RTC judge dated December 21, 1988, which was rendered in Civil Case No. 13699, is SET ASIDE and the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on November 20, 1989 is MADE PERMANENT. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31635 August 31, 1971 ANGEL MINISTERIO and ASUNCION SADAYA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, Fourth Branch, Presided by the Honorable, Judge JOSE C. BORROMEO, THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, and THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents. Eriberto Seno for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Acting First Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Norberto P. Eduardo for respondents.

FERNANDO, J.: What is before this Court for determination in this appeal by certiorari to review a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu is the question of whether or not plaintiffs, now petitioners, seeking the just compensation to which they are entitled under the Constitution for the expropriation of their property necessary for the widening of a street, no condemnation proceeding having been filed, could sue defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General, in their capacity as public officials without thereby violating the principle of government immunity from suit without its consent. The lower court, relying on what it considered to be authoritative precedents, held that they could not and dismissed the suit. The matter was then elevated to us. After a careful consideration and with a

view to avoiding the grave inconvenience, not to say possible injustice contrary to the constitutional mandate, that would be the result if no such suit were permitted, this Court arrives at a different conclusion, and sustains the right of the plaintiff to file a suit of this character. Accordingly, we reverse. Petitioners as plaintiffs in a complaint filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, dated April 13, 1966, sought the payment of just compensation for a registered lot, containing an area of 1045 square meters, alleging that in 1927 the National Government through its authorized representatives took physical and material possession of it and used it for the widening of the Gorordo Avenue, a national road, Cebu City, without paying just compensation and without any agreement, either written or verbal. There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of its price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its possession. It was further alleged that on August 25, 1965, the appraisal committee of the City of Cebu approved Resolution No. 90, appraising the reasonable and just price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per square meter or a total price of P52,250.00. Thereafter, the complaint was amended on June 30, 1966 in the sense that the remedy prayed for was in the alternative, either the restoration of possession or the payment of the just compensation. In the answer filed by defendants, now respondents, through the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice, Antonio P. Barredo, the principal defense relied upon was that the suit in reality was one against the government and therefore should be dismissed, no consent having been shown. Then on July 11, 1969, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts to this effect: "That the plaintiffs are the registered owners of Lot 647-B of the Banilad estate described in the Survey plan RS-600 GLRO Record No. 5988 and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-5963 containing an area of 1,045 square meters; That the National Government in 1927 took possession of Lot 647-B Banilad estate, and used the same for the widening of Gorordo Avenue; That the Appraisal Committee of Cebu City approved Resolution No. 90, Series of 1965 fixing the price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per square meter; That Lot No. 647-B is still in the possession of the National Government the same being utilized as part of the Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, and that the National Government has not as yet paid the value of the land which is being utilized for public use." 1 The lower court decision now under review was promulgated on January 30, 1969. As is evident from the excerpt to be cited, the plea that the suit was against the government without its consent having been manifested met with a favorable response. Thus: "It is uncontroverted that the land in question is used by the National Government for road purposes. No evidence was presented whether or not there was an agreement or contract between the government and the original owner and whether payment was paid or not to the original owner of the land. It may be presumed that when the land was taken by the government the payment of its value was made thereafter and no satisfactory explanation was given why this case was filed only in 1966. But granting that no compensation was given to the owner of the land, the case is undoubtedly against the National Government and there is no showing that the government has consented to be sued in this case. It may be contended that the present case is brought against the Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General and not against the National Government. Considering that the herein defendants are sued in their official capacity the action is one against the National Government who should have been made a party in this case, but, as stated before, with its consent." 2 Then came this petition for certiorari to review the above decision. The principal error assigned would impugn the holding that the case being against the national government which was sued without its consent should be dismissed, as it was in fact dismissed. As was indicated in the opening paragraph of this opinion, this assignment of error is justified. The decision of the lower court cannot stand. We shall proceed to explain why. 1. The government is immune from suit without its consent. 3 Nor is it indispensable that it be the party proceeded against. If it appears that the action, would in fact hold it liable, the doctrine calls for application. It follows then that even if the defendants named were public officials, such a principle could still be an effective bar. This is clearly so where a litigation would result in a financial responsibility for the government, whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property. Under such circumstances, the liability of the official sued is not personal. The party that could be adversely affected is government. Hence the defense of non-suability may be interposed. 4 So it has been categorically set forth in Syquia v. Almeda Lopez: 5 "However, and this is important, where the judgment in such a case would result not only in the recovery of possession of the property in favor of said citizen but also in a charge against or financial liability to the Government, then the suit should be regarded as one against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly entertained by the courts except with the consent of said Government." 6 2. It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by Justice Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications v. Aligean: 7 "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent." 8

3. It would follow then that the prayer in the amended complaint of petitioners being in the alternative, the lower court, instead of dismissing the same, could have passed upon the claim of plaintiffs there, now petitioners, for the recovery of the possession of the disputed lot, since no proceeding for eminent domain, as required by the then Code of Civil Procedure, was instituted. 9 However, as noted in Alfonso v. Pasay City, 10 this Court speaking through Justice Montemayor, restoration would be "neither convenient nor feasible because it is now and has been used for road purposes." 11 The only relief, in the opinion of this Court, would be for the government "to make due compensation, ..." 12 It was made clear in such decision that compensation should have been made "as far back as the date of the taking." Does it result, therefore, that petitioners would be absolutely remediless since recovery of possession is in effect barred by the above decision? If the constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated for property taken for public use 13 were to be respected, as it should, then a suit of this character should not be summarily dismissed. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Had the government followed the procedure indicated by the governing law at the time, a complaint would have been filed by it, and only upon payment of the compensation fixed by the judgment, or after tender to the party entitled to such payment of the amount fixed, may it "have the right to enter in and upon the land so condemned" to appropriate the same to the public use defined in the judgment." 14 If there were an observance of procedural regularity, petitioners would not be in the sad plaint they are now. It is unthinkable then that precisely because there was a failure to abide by what the law requires, the government would stand to benefit. It is just as important, if not more so, that there be fidelity to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law were to be maintained. It is not too much to say that when the government takes any property for public use, which is conditioned upon the payment of just compensation, to be judicially ascertained, it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of a court. There is no thought then that the doctrine of immunity from suit could still be appropriately invoked. 15 Accordingly, the lower court decision is reversed so that the court may proceed with the complaint and determine the compensation to which petitioners are entitled, taking into account the ruling in the above Alfonso case: "As to the value of the property, although the plaintiff claims the present market value thereof, the rule is that to determine due compensation for lands appropriated by the Government, the basis should be the price or value at the time that it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the Government." 16 WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of January 30, 1969 dismissing the complaint is reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for proceedings in accordance with law. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur. Concepcion, C.J., and Barredo, J., took no part.