The Philippines as a State>Sovereignty>Sovereignty Immunity>Suit against/not against the State>Expropriation

Delos Santos v IAC 223 SCRA 11 June 2, 1993

Petitioners: EMILIANO R. DE LOS SANTOS, SPOUSES NORMA A. PADILLA and ISIDORO L. PADILLA
and the HEIRS OF FRANCISCO DAYRIT
Respondents: THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. JUDGE CICERRO C. JURADO
and EDILBERTO CADIENTE
Ponente: ROMERO, J.
Facts:
Petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land located in Barrio Wawa, Binangonan, Rizal
Petitioners alleged (in the 1st civil case filed) that without their knowledge or consent, Lorenzo
Cadiente, a private contractor and the Provincial Engineer of Rizal, constructed a road and an
artificial creek which occupied a portion of their land. Petitioners prayed, among other things, that
judgment be rendered declaring illegal the construction of the road and artificial creek which was
made "without due process and without just compensation and in violation of the provision of
statute law and of the Philippine Constitution".
An action for damages (2nd civil case) was also filed.
Court of First Instance (CFI) dismissed the 2 civil cases on the ground that the cases were in
reality, suits against the state which could not be maintained without the State's consent
(defendants impleaded in the cases are Cadiente and Agustin [Chief Civil Engineer of the Rizal
Engineer District] and not the Republic of the Philippines).
Upon denial of petitioners MR, case was elevated to the SC which referred the case to the IAC.
IAC affirmed CFIs decision stating that appellants remedy lies elsewhere, hence this petition for
review on certiorari.
Doctrine: The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating
an injustice on a citizen. Where private property has been taken in expropriation without just
compensation being paid, the defense of immunity from suit cannot be set up by the State.
Issue: W/N a suit may properly be maintained against the government.
Held: Yes, petition was granted. (Civil cases remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits after the
RP shall have been impleaded as defendant in the cases).
Ratio: As stated in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, where private property has been taken in
expropriation without just compensation being paid, the defense of immunity from suit cannot be
set up by the State against an action for payment by the owner.
Court found that the respondent government officials executed a shortcut in appropriating petitioners'
property for public use - no expropriation proceedings were initiated before construction of the projects
began. Public respondents' belief that the property involved is public, even if buttressed by statements of
other public officials, is no reason for the unjust taking of petitioners' property. Had the public
respondents, including the other officials involved in the construction, performed their functions by
exercising even the ordinary diligence expected of them as public officials, they would not have failed to
note that the property is a private one (Torrens title available as evidence).