Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Amigable Vs Cuenca

    Uploaded by

    Mitch Roldan
    Victoria Amigable owned a lot that the government used to construct roads without providing compensation. Amigable sued the government and the Commissioner of Highways for recovery of the land and damages. The court ruled that Amigable could properly sue the government, as the doctrine of immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against a citizen. As the registered owner, Amigable could bring an action to recover possession of the land. The government should provide due compensation based on the land value at the time it was taken.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Amigable Vs Cuenca

    Uploaded by

    Mitch Roldan
    182 views1 page
    Victoria Amigable owned a lot that the government used to construct roads without providing compensation. Amigable sued the government and the Commissioner of Highways for recovery of the land and damages. The court ruled that Amigable could properly sue the government, as the doctrine of immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against a citizen. As the registered owner, Amigable could bring an action to recover possession of the land. The government should provide due compensation based on the land value at the time it was taken.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Amigable vs Cuenca

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Victoria Amigable owned a lot that the government used to construct roads without providing compensation. Amigable sued the government and the Commissioner of Highways for recovery of the land and damages. The court ruled that Amigable could properly sue the government, as the doctrine of immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against a citizen. As the registered owner, Amigable could bring an action to recover possession of the land. The government should provide due compensation based on the land value at the time it was taken.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views1 page

    Amigable Vs Cuenca

    Uploaded by

    Mitch Roldan
    Victoria Amigable owned a lot that the government used to construct roads without providing compensation. Amigable sued the government and the Commissioner of Highways for recovery of the land and damages. The court ruled that Amigable could properly sue the government, as the doctrine of immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against a citizen. As the registered owner, Amigable could bring an action to recover possession of the land. The government should provide due compensation based on the land value at the time it was taken.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Roldan, Mitch L.

    JD – 1
    Llb111 – Constitutional Law 1 – 7003

    Subject: Constitutional Law 1


    Topic: State Immunity - Expropriation
    Title: AMIGABLE vs. CUENCA
    Citation: 43 SCRA 360 G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972

    Facts:
    Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in
    Cebu City. The Transfer Certificate has no annotation in favor of the government
    of any right or interest in the property appears at the back of the certificate. The
    government used a portion of said lot, with an area of 6,167 square meters, for
    the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues.

    On March 27, 1958 Amigable's counsel wrote a letter to the President, requesting
    payment of the portion of her lot which had been appropriated by the government
    and was disallowed by the Auditor General on its 9th Indorsement dated
    December 9, 1958.

    Amigable filed in the court a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines
    and Cuenca in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery
    of ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters of land traversed by the
    Mango and Gorordo Avenues and a payment of compensatory damages.

    As to defendants answer to plaintiff-appellant complaint to wit: (1) that the action


    was premature, the claim not having been filed first with the Office of the Auditor
    General; (2) that the right of action for the recovery of any amount which might
    be due the plaintiff, if any, had already prescribed; (3) that the action being a suit
    against the Government, the claim for moral damages, attorney's fees and costs
    had no valid basis since as to these items the Government had not given its
    consent to be sued; and (4) that inasmuch as it was the province of Cebu that
    appropriated and used the area involved in the construction of Mango Avenue,
    plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants.

    Issue/s:
    1. Whether the appellant may properly sue the government.

    Ruling/s:
    Yes. The aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government
    without violating the doctrine of immunity from suit. The doctrine of immunity from
    suit cannot serve as instrument for perpetratin an injustice to a citizen.

    As registered owner, she could bring an action to recover possession of the


    portion of land in question at anytime because possession is one of the attributes
    of ownership. The only relief available is for the government to make due
    compensation which it could and should have done years ago. To determine the
    due compensation for the land, the basis should be the price or value thereof at
    the time of the taking.

    You might also like