POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

8. Amigable v. Cuenca
(G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972)

FACTS:
Appellant is the registered lot owner of a property, in which the government used a portion for the
construction of Mango and Gorordo Avenues in Cebu City. Such property did not have any annotations in
favor of the government and no prior expropriation or negotiated sale had occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel
requested, through the Office of the President, for the payment for the portion of her property utilized for
the construction of roads.. The claim was then endorsed to the Auditor General, who in turn disallowed any
payments to be made.
Appellant Amigable filed a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca,
in his capacity as the Commissioner of Public Highways. She sought payment for compensatory damages,
moral damages, attorney’s fees and cost of suit. Defendants filed a joint answer denying the allegations and
interposed that the Plaintiff’s arguments are 1) premature; 2) right of action for recovery of any amount had
already prescribed; 3) the Government had not given its consent, therefore cannot be sued; and 4) plaintiff
had no cause of action.
On 29 July 1959, the trial court had decided that it had no jurisdiction over the Appellant’s cause
of action. The complaint was brought up to the Court of Appeals but also to no avail. The complaint was
dismissed. Hence, the case was brought up to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant may properly sue the government under the circumstances of the
case?

HELD:
YES. The Power of Eminent Domain states that the government must follow the legal process of
expropriation or negotiated sale in order for private property to be converted for public use. The government
must first offer to buy the private property before it continues with any form of construction. Further, the
private owner must also be willing to sell his property and also to accept the offer of the government.
In the case, it should be noted that there was no annotation in favor of the government in the
certificate of title of Amigable. There was also no means or ways that the government followed the supposed
legal procedure to be done when purchasing private property from a private owner. Because of such, the
Appellant remains to be the owner of the whole property in question. As the registered owner, she can
rightfully bring a cause of action to recover the protion of her land that was utilized by the government for
the construction of Mango and Gorordo Avenues.
However, since the restoration of the property is not feasible, the only relief available for the
Appellant is for the government to make due compensation based on the price or value of the property at
the time it was taken. Also, Amigable is entitled to legal interest on the price of the land from the time it
was taken up to the time that payment is made by the government.