View full case

EMILIANO R. DE LOS SANTOS v. IAC

FACTS:

The case involves two consolidated civil cases filed by petitioners who are co-owners of a parcel of land. In Civil Case No. 46800, the petitioners alleged that a road and an artificial creek were constructed on their land without their knowledge or consent. They claimed that the construction was for the personal profit of the respondents and served no public purpose. They invoked their rights under the Bill of Rights and prayed for the issuance of a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction.

In Civil Case No. 46801, the petitioners sought damages for the alleged violation of their right against deprivation of property without due process of law and without just compensation.

The Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss both cases on the grounds that they were suits against the state, lacked cause of action, and were duplicative. The lower court dismissed the cases without pronouncement as to costs.

Petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which affirmed the dismissal, stating that the actions were suits against the state that could not be maintained without the state's consent.

Petitioners then elevated the cases to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the cases on the grounds that they are suits against the state without its consent and lack of cause of action.

  2. Whether the principle of state immunity from suit can be invoked to defeat the claim of the petitioners.

RULING:

  1. The lower court erred in dismissing the cases. The appellate court ruled that the two actions cannot be maintained because they are in reality suits against the state, which has not given its consent to be sued. However, the remedy for just compensation for the alleged expropriated area of the land lies elsewhere, and the dismissal of the cases is not a bar to pursuing such remedy.

  2. The principle of state immunity from suit cannot be invoked to defeat the claim of the petitioners. The Court has long settled that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot be used as a tool to perpetuate injustice. If the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, a suit may be properly maintained against the government.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Governmental immunity from suit cannot be invoked to defeat a claim if the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale.

  • The remedy for just compensation for expropriated property lies elsewhere, even if the claim against the government is dismissed for lack of consent to be sued.