Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
GR No. 70853, March 12 1987, 148 SCRA 424
FACTS:
Respondent Feliciano filed a complaint with the then CFI of Camarines Sur 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 (4) lots situated in the Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines Sur.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Plaintiff alleged:
- that he bought the property in question from Victor Gardiola by virtue of a Contract of Sale followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale;
- that Gardiola had acquired the property by purchase from the heirs of Francisco Abrazado whose title to the said property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria that upon plaintiff's purchase of the property, he took actual possession of the same, introduced various improvements therein and caused it to be surveyed in July 1952, which survey was approved by the Director of Lands;
- that on November 1, 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90 reserving for settlement purposes, under the administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), a tract of land situated in the Municipalities of Tinambac and Siruma, Camarines Sur, after which the NARRA and its successor agency, the Land Authority, started sub-dividing and distributing the land to the settlers;
- that the property in question, while located within the reservation established under Proclamation No. 90, was the private property of plaintiff and should therefore be excluded therefrom.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
The trial court rendered its decision declaring Lot No. 1 be the private property of the plaintiff, "being covered by a possessory information title in the name of his predecessor-in-interest" and declaring said lot excluded from the NARRA settlement reservation, while rest of the property be reverted to the public domain.
After several motions filed, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines filed its opposition, assailed the non-suability of the State and also on the ground that the existence and/or authenticity of the purported possessory information title of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had not been demonstrated and that at any rate, the same is not evidence of title, or if it is, its efficacy has been lost by prescription and laches.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
ISSUE:
Whether or not the State is immune from suit.
HELD:
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
The doctrine of non-suability of the State has proper application in this case.
The plaintiff has impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, bringing the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to be usurping a piece of property.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
A suit for the recovery of property is not an action in rem, but an action in personam.
It is an action directed against a specific party or parties, and any judgment therein binds only such party or parties.
The complaint filed by plaintiff, the private respondent herein, is directed against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Authority, a governmental agency created by Republic Act No. 3844.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
By its caption and its allegation and prayer, the complaint is clearly a suit against the State, which under settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted.
There is no such showing in the instant case. Worse, the complaint itself fails to allege the existence of such consent.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
This is a fatal defect, and on this basis alone, the complaint should have been dismissed.
The failure of the petitioner to assert the defense of immunity from suit when the case was tried before the court a quo, as alleged by private respondent, is not fatal.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
It is now settled that such defense "may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings."