Republic v. Feliciano

FACTS:Petitioner seeks the review of the decisionof the Intermediate Appellate Court dated April 30,1985 reversing the order ofthe Court of First Instance ofCamarines Sur, Branch VI, dated August21, 1980,which dismissed the complaint ofrespondent Pablo Feliciano for recovery of ownership and possession of aparcel of land on theground of non-suability ofthe State. On January 22, 1970, Feliciano filed a complaint withthe then Court ofFirst Instance of Camarines Sur against theRP,represented by the Land Authority, for the recovery ofownership and possession of aparcel of land, consisting offour (4)lots with an aggregate area of 1,364.4177 hectares, situated inthe Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac,Camarines Sur. Feliciano alleged that he boughtthe property in question from Victor Gardiola byvirtue of a Contract ofSale dated May 31, 1952, followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale onOctober 30, 1954; that Gardiola had acquired the property by purchase from the heirs of Francisco Abrazado whose titleto the said property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria that upon his purchase ofthe property, he tookactual possession of the same,introduced various improvements therein and caused it to besurveyed in July 1952, whichsurvey was approved by the Director of LandsonOctober 24, 1954.On November 1, 1954,President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90 reserving for settlement purposes, unde rthe administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), a tract of landsituated in the Municipalities of Tinambac and Siruma,Camarines Sur, after which theNARRA and its successoragency, the LandAuthority, started sub-dividing and distributing the landto the settlers; that theproperty in question, while located within the reservation established under Proclamation No. 90, wasthe private property of Feliciano and should therefore be excluded there from. Feliciano prayed that he bedeclared the rightful and true owner ofthe property in question consisting of 1,364.4177 hectares; that his title of ownership based on informacion posesoriaof his predecessor-in-interest be declared legal valid and subsisting and thatdefendant be ordered to cancel and nullify allawards to the settlers.

ISSUE:WON the State can be sued for recovery and possession of a parcel of land

RULING: NO

RATIONALE:

A suit against the State, 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. It may be invoked by the courtssua sponteat any stage of the proceedings. Waiver of immunity, beinga derogation ofsovereignty, willnot be inferred lightly. but must beconstrued in strictissimijuris(of strictest right). Moreover, the Proclamation is nota legislative act. The consentof the State tobe sued must emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of Stateimmunity can onlybe made byan act ofthe legislative body.Addtl:Worthy of note is the fact, as pointedout by the SolicitorGeneral, that the informacion posesoriaregistered in the Office of the Register of Deed of Camarines Sur on September 23, 1952 was a "reconstituted" possessory information; itwas "reconstituted from theduplicate presented to thisoffice (Register of Deeds) byDr. Pablo Feliciano," without the submission of proof that thealleged duplicate was authentic or that theoriginal thereof was lost. Reconstitution can bevalidly made only in case ofloss of the original. Thesecircumstances raise grave doubts as to the authenticity and validityof the "informacion posesoria" relied upon byrespondent Feliciano. Adding to the dubiousness ofsaid document is the fact that "possessory information calls for an area ofonly 100 hectares," whereas theland claimed by respondent Feliciano comprises 1,364.4177 hectares, later reduced to 701-9064 hectares. Courts should be wary in accepting "possessory information documents, as well asother purportedly old Spanish titles, asproof of alleged ownership oflands.