Amigable v Cuenca [43 SCRA 360; G.R. No. L-26400; 29 Feb.

1972]

Facts: Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a particular lot. At the back of her
Transfer Certificate of Title (1924), there was no annotation in favor of the government of
any right or interest in the property. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the
government used a portion of the lot for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo
Avenues. On 1958, Amigables counsel wrote the President of the Philippines,
requesting payment of the portion of the said lot. It was disallowed by the Auditor General in
his 9th Endorsement. Petitioner then filed in the court a quo a complaint against the Republic
of the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways
for the recovery of ownership and possession of the lot. According to the defendants, the
action was premature because it was not filed first at the Office of the Auditor General.
According to them, the right of action for the recovery of any amount had already prescribed,
that the Government had not given its consent to be sued, and that plaintiff had no cause of
action against the defendants.

Issue: Whether or Not, under the facts of the case, appellant may properly sue
the government.

Held: In the case of Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, it was held that when
the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going
through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may
properly maintain a suit against the government without violating the doctrine of
governmental immunity from suit without its consent. In the case at bar, since no annotation
in favour of the government appears at the back of the certificate of title and plaintiff has not
executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of the lot to the government, then she
remains the owner of the lot. She could then bring an action to recover possession of the
land anytime, because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. However, since
such action is not feasible at this time since the lot has been used for other purposes, the
only relief left is for the government to make due compensationprice or value of the lot at
the time of the taking.