TOPIC V: Doctrine of Non-Suability; What Constitute a suit against the State

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PABLO FELICIANO & INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (IAC)

G.R. No. 70853, 12 March 1987

FACTS:
1. FELICIANO (respondent) bought a parcel of land from Victor Gardiola, whose title was evidenced
by an Informacion Posesoria (upon purchase of the property, you already took actual possession
of the same, introduced various improvements therein).

2. Nov. 1, 1954, PRESIDENT RAMON MAGSAYSAY issued PROCLAMATION No. 90 under the
administration of National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) reserving
for resettlement purposes.

3. The Land Authority, the successor agency of NARRA, started subdividing and distributing a portion
of land in Camarines Sur to the settlers. The land allegedly owned by FELICIANO was included.

4. FELICIANO filed a complaint with the then COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE against the REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES (represented by LAND AUTHORITY) for the recovery of the ownership and
possession of the parcel of land in question.

5. LAND AUTHORITY filed an answer and contended that the complaint has lack of sufficient cause
of action and prescription.

6. TC affirmed ownership of FELICIANO only Lot 1; 2, 3, 4 reverted to the public domain.

7. 86 settlers filed a motion to intervene arguing that they had been in possession of the land for
20 years.

8. FELICIANO went to the IAC and filed a suit to the settlers, the land authority, or the RP.

9. INTERVENORS file a motion to dismiss, principally on the ground that RP cannot be sued without
its consent. (dismissal was proper on the Doctrine of Non-suability of the State)

10. FELICIANO together with the IAC assumed that the waiver or consent to sue the state was
already covered in the PROCLAMATION 90.

ISSUE/s:

1. Can FELICIANO sue the state on the recovery of his allegedly owned property without its consent?
2. Can PROCLAMATION 90 (under NARRA) be considered as a waiver or consent to sue the State?

Case Digest by TRUGILLO, SNOWIE C.

Constitutional Law 1
 TOPIC V: Doctrine of Non-Suability; What Constitute a suit against the State

RULING:

1. NO. FELICIANO cannot sue the state without its consent. A suit for recovery of property is not an
action IN REM, but an action in PERSONAM.

- Doctrine of Non-Suability has proper application in this case.

- The plaintiff has impleaded the RP as defendant just like any private person who is usurping
a piece of property,

In rem: against a thing

In personam: against a person

- A suit against the state is not permitted EXCEPT if the State has consented to be sued.

CONSENT either EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY

EXPRESS: manifested from either GENERAL LAWS or SPECIAL LAWS

 General Law (Act No. 3083)

“The Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upon
any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which
could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.”

A claim against government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit upon 60
days. If rejected, authorize to elevate it to the SC (CA No. 327 as amended by PD No. 1445)

 Special Law

Enacted by the Philippine Legislature authorizing an individual to sue the Philippine

Government for injuries.

2. NO. Proclamation 90 (NARRA) cannot be considered as a consent. Consent of the RP cannot be

derived from a proclamation which is not a legislative act.

- PROCLAMATION 90 (NARRA) is an executive act.

What constitute a suit to the State? (syllabus)

- CONSENT from the State (expressly or impliedly)

Case Digest by TRUGILLO, SNOWIE C.

Constitutional Law 1