Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu

8/21/2021 Ministerio vs.
CFI of Cebu
WHATEVER INFOS SEARCH
HOME
Constitutional Law 1
Constitutional Law 2
Recently Signed Laws
Useful Info
B
urgos vs. Chief of Staff G.R. No. L-
Burgos vs. 64261, December 26, 1984, 133 SCRA
800 FACTS: On December 7, 1982, respondent

Chief of Staff judge issued two [2] search warrants to
"Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum"

August 17, 2019
newspapers. During the search, the office and
printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia,
motor vehicles and other articles used in the…
SHARE
POST A COMMENT
Want to know your IQ?
Take this online IQ test to discover your IQ score
test-iq.org Open
Ministerio vs. CFI of

Cebu
July 15, 2013
M
inisterio vs. CFI of Cebu
GR No. L-31635, August 31 1971, 40 SCRA 464
FACTS:
whateverinfos.blogspot.com/2013/07/ministerio-vs-cfi-of-cebu.html 1/9
8/21/2021 Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu
Petitioners as plaintiffs in a complaint filed with the Court of First

Instance of Cebu, sought the payment of just compensation for a
registered lot, alleging that in 1927 the National Government

through its authorized representatives took physical and material
possession of it and used it for the widening of the Gorordo Avenue,
a national road, Cebu City, without paying just compensation and

without any agreement, either written or verbal.
Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu
There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of its

price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway
Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its
possession.
Read: Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
It was further alleged that the appraisal committee of the City of
Cebu approved Resolution No. 90, appraising the reasonable and

just price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per square meter or a total
price of P52,250.00.
Thereafter, the complaint was amended on June 30, 1966 in the

sense that the remedy prayed for was in the alternative, either the
restoration of possession or the payment of the just compensation.

Respondents, through the then Solicitor General, the principal
defense relied upon was that the suit in reality was one against the
government and therefore should be dismissed, no consent having

been shown.
ISSUE:
Whether or not plaintiffs can sue defendants Public Highway
Commissioner and the Auditor General, in their capacity as public

officials without thereby violating the principle of government
immunity from suit without its consent.

HELD:
Yes.
The lower court decision is reversed so that the court may proceed
with the complaint and determine the compensation to which
petitioners are entitled.
In Alfonso v. Pasay City, it noted that:
“
neither convenient nor feasible because it is now
and has been used for road purposes.”
The only relief would be for the government "to make due
compensation,"
It was made clear in such decision that compensation should have

been made "as far back as the date of the taking."
Read: United States of America vs. Ruiz
Does it result, therefore, that petitioners would be absolutely
remediless since recovery of possession is in effect barred by the

above decision?
If the constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated for

property taken for public use were to be respected, as it should,
then a suit of this character should not be summarily dismissed.

The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as
an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.
Had the government followed the procedure indicated by the

governing law at the time, a complaint would have been filed by it,
and only upon payment of the compensation fixed by the judgment,
or after tender to the party entitled to such payment of the amount

fixed, may it "have the right to enter in and upon the land so
condemned" to appropriate the same to the public use defined in
the judgment."
If there were an observance of procedural regularity, petitioners

would not be in the sad plaint they are now.

It is unthinkable then that precisely because there was a failure to
abide by what the law requires, the government would stand to
benefit.
It is just as important, if not more so, that there be fidelity to legal
norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law were to be

maintained.
It is not too much to say that when the government takes any
property for public use, which is conditioned upon the payment of
just compensation, to be judicially ascertained, it makes manifest

that it submits to the jurisdiction of a court.
There is no thought then that the doctrine of immunity from suit

could still be appropriately invoked.
READ FULL TEXT
LABELS:
40 SCRA 464,
AUGUST 31 1971,
CASE DIGEST,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
G.R. NO. L-31635,
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT,

MINISTERIO VS. CFI OF CEBU,
POLITICAL LAW
SHARE
Popular posts from this blog
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of

Immigration
July 07, 2013
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration GR No. L-21289, October 4 1971, 41
SCRA 292 FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a
non-immigrant on 8 February 1961. In the interrogation made in connection with her
application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she stated that she was
a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to
the Philippines to visit her great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to come
into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a period of one month. On the date of her
arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to undertake, among
…
others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines on or before
SHARE READ MORE
Tolentino vs. Comelec

July 06, 2013
Tolentino vs. Comelec GR No. L-34150, October 16 1971, 41 SCRA 702 FACTS: The 1971
Constitutional Convention came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the Congress
approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the purpose of calling a
convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. After election of delegates held

on November 10, 1970, the Convention held its inaugural session on June 1, 1971. In the
morning of September 28, 1970, the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which
is entitled as, "A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE V OF THE
CONSTITUTION SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 18." On September 30, 1971, the
COMELEC "resolved" to follow the mandate of the Convention, that it will hold the said …
SHARE READ MORE
FRANCISCO vs. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES
June 29, 2013
FRANCISCO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
FACTS: Impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide. The justiciable controversy poised in front of the Court was the
constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of
impeachment provided for by law. ISSUE: Whether or Not the filing of the second
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of
Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution and whether
the resolution thereof is a political question – has resulted in a political crisis. HELD: In
…
any event, it is with the absolute certainty that our Constitution is sufficient to address
SHARE READ MORE
Welcome to WhateverInfos
This site is created to post case

digests of Supreme Court rulings and
other laws in the Philippines for the
purpose of giving aid to law students.
Other useful resources are also posted

here.
About
Privacy Policy
Archive
Labels
Followers
Followers (4)
Follow
Total Pageviews

317,195

Posts

Comments
Report Abuse
Thank you for visiting Whatever

Infos. Please don't forget to share
this on your favorite social media
sites. It helps a lot for the growth
of this blog. Thank you.

Powered by Blogger

Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/21/2021 Ministerio vs.

WHATEVER INFOS SEARCH

Burgos vs. 64261, December 26, 1984, 133 SCRA

800 FACTS: On December 7, 1982, respondent

"Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum"

printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia,

motor vehicles and other articles used in the…

Want to know your IQ?

Take this online IQ test to discover your IQ score