Republic v. Feliciano and Intermediate Appellate Court
G.R. No. 70853
March 12, 1987
Facts:
On January 22, 1970, Pablo Feliciano filed a complaint 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 lots with a total area of 1,364 hectares. The land was situated in Camarines Sur. Feliciano alleged that he bought the property from a certain Victor Gardiola by virtue of a contract of sale dated May 31, 1952.
On November 1, 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90, reserving some lands for resettlement purposes. This was under the administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA). Feliciano alleged that his land was used for the resettlement. He prayed that his title of ownership based on informacion posesoria of his predecessor-in-interest be declared legal, valid, and subsisting.
Judge Rafael Sison rendered a decision, declaring Lot No. 1, with an area of 701.9 hectares, to be the private property of Feliciano. A motion to intervene was filed by 86 settlers, but they did not appear during the presentation of evidence and instead submitted a motion for postponement, which the trial court denied.
However, on December 10, 1971, Judge Miguel Navarro issued an order denying the motion for execution and setting aside the order denying the intervenors’ motion for postponement. The case, therefore, was reopened. On August 21, 1980, Judge Esteban Lising issued an order to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Solicitor General agreed with Judge Lising contending that the State may not be sued and also that the existence and/or authenticity of the purported possessory information had not been demonstrated.
Issue:
Can the State be sued in this case?
Ruling:
No. The doctrine of non-suability of the state has proper application in this case. A suit for the recovery of property is not an action in rem but an action in personam. This means that it is an action against the specific party, resulting to Feliciano’s suing of the State itself.
There is no showing that the State has consented to be sued. Furthermore, the complaint itself fails to allege the existence of such consent, which is a fatal defect. On the other hand, the State’s failure to assert the defense of immunity from suit when the case was tried is not fatal because it is settled that such defense may be invoked by the courts at any stage of the proceedings.
Feliciano contended that the Proclamation shows the consent of the State to be sued when it established the reservation “subject to private rights, if any there be.” The Court said that the consent of the State cannot be drawn from the language of the proclamation. The waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly but must be construed strictissimi juris(the strictest letter of the law). Moreover, the proclamation is not a legislative act. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority.
There were also doubts as to the genuineness of the informacion posesoria. Under the Spanish Mortgage Law, it is a means to record a claimant’s actual possession of a piece of land. Thus, it shows only that at the time the proceeding was held, the claimant was in possession of the land. Also, possessory information calls for an area of only 100 hectares, whereas the land claimed was 1,364 hectares.
It's a Ping Thing 