G.R. No. L-4699. November 26, 1952
TEODORA SANTOS, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND DONATO DE CASTRO, JOSEFINA SANTOS, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ AND EMILIANA SANTOS, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. LEONCIO…
PADILLA, J.:
Santos complain that from 1945 to 1949 Leoncio Santos collected from the Army of
the United States of America rentals for the use and occupation of a parcel of
land, known as Lot No. 4 of CAA Survey Plan AERO R-1, containing” an area of
21,577 square meters, situated in the municipality of Las Piñas, province of
Rizal, more particularly described in the complaint, belonging to them and
Leoncio Santos in common fry inheritance from their ancestor, the late Paulino
de Ios Santos, father of Teodora Santos and Leoncio Santos and grandfather of
Josefina Santos and Emiliana Santos, who died sometime in 1919, in the
proportion of 1/7 undivided share for Teodora Santos and 1/4 undivided share
each for Josefina Santos and Emiliana Santos and 5/7 undivided share for Leoncio
Santos, for the accounting of which and payment of their respective shares
therein they made & demand upon Leoncio Santos but the latter failed and
refused to do so. They also complain that they made a demand upon Leoncio Santos
to have the lot partitioned among them but the latter refused to do so, he
having sold the lot to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration
on or about 13 May 1949, who is now in possession thereof; and that the sale of
the lot made by Leoncio Santos to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics
Administration insofar as their shares in the lot are concerned is null and
void. Upon these allegations they pray that Leoncio Santos be ordered to render
an accounting of the rentals and such other fruits, products and benefits as he
might have received from 1945 on and thereafter and to pay and deliver 1/7
thereof, to Teodora Santos and yu thereof each to Josefina and Emiliana surnamed
Santos; that the parcel of land be partitioned among them in the proportion
above stated; that the purported sale by Leoncio Santos to the National Airports
Corporation, the predecessor of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, insofar as
their shares are concerned be declared null and void; that the Administrator of
the Civil Aeronautics Administration be directed to vacate the portions of the
lot belonging to them, to pay them a reasonable rental until after possession of
their shares in the lot shall have been restored to them and to pay damages and
costs.
The Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration moved
to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of the
complaint against him, invoking the case of Metropolitan Transportation Service
METRAN vs. Paredes, 45 Off. Gaz., 2835, where it has been held that the suit was
against the state which could not be brought without its consent. This motion
was granted on the ground that the Civil Aeronautics Administration not being a
juridical person has no capacity to sue and be sued and for that reason it
cannot come under the jurisdiction of the court.
The principle that the state or its government cannot be sued
without its consent has its root in the juridical and practical notion that the
state can do no wrong. Demandable and enforceable obligations which may be the
subject of judicial action come into being either by law, contract,
quasi-contract, acts or omissions punishable by law, acts which do not constitute
or amount to a crime or a misdemeanor known at common law as torts and in civil
law as culpa aquiliana or extra contractual. An obligation or liability of the
state created by statute is enforceable against the officer or agent charged
with the duty to execute the law. If there should be anything demandable which
had been paid or delivered to or collected by officers or agents of the state
without the authority of law, the action would not be against the state but
against the responsible officers or agents who received what was not due the
state or made the unauthorized collection. Punishable acts or omissions
committed by officers or agents of the state are crimes and violations of law
perpetrated by such officers or agents and not by the state. The same postulate
may be applied to torts committed by officers or agents of the state.
Nevertheless, if, where and when the state or its government enters into a
contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and
purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority, whereby mutual or
reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, and if
the law granting the authority to enter into such contract does not provide for
or name the officer against whom action may be brought in the event of a breach
thereof, the state itself may be sued even without its consent, because by
entering into a contract the sovereign state has descended to the level of the
citizen and its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into
such contract. If the dignity of the state, the sacredness of the institution,
the respect for the government are to be preserved and the dragging of its name
in a suit to be prevented, the legislative department should name the officer or
agent against whom the action may be brought in the event of breach of the
contract entered into under its name and authority. And the omission or failure
of the legislative department to do so is no obstacle or impediment for an
individual or citizen, who is aggrieved by the breach of the contract, to bring
an action against the state itself for the reasons already adverted to, to wit:
the descent of the sovereign state to the level of the individual or citizen
with whom it entered into a contract and its consent to be sued implied from the
act of entering into such contract.
The action brought in this case is for partition and accounting
of rentals received by the defendant Leoncio Santos from 1945 to December 1949
for the use and occupation of a parcel of land allegedly owned in common by the
plaintiffs and the defendant Leoncio Santos in the proportion stated in the
complaint. It is also averred that the National Airports Corporation created by
Republic Act No. 224, which had acquired the parcel of land from the defendant
Leoncio Santos, was abolished by Executive Order No. 365, series of 1950, and in
its place and stead the Civil Aeronautics Administration was created and took
over all the assets and assumed all the liabilities of the abolished
corporation. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, even if it is not a juridical
entity, cannot legally prevent a party or parties from enforcing their
proprietary rights under the cloak or shield of lack of juridical personality,
because it took over all the powers and assumed all the obligations of the
defunct corporation which had entered into the contract in question. In National
Airports Corporation vs. Teodoro*, G. R. No. L-5122, 30 April 1952, we held that
the Civil Aeronautics Administration may be sued and that the principle of state
immunity from suit does not apply to it.
If the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the parcel
of land sold by Leoncio Santos and acquired by the National Airports
Corporation, now in possession of its successor, the Civil Aeronautics
Administration, the complaint would have to be dismissed. But if the right to
such shares as claimed be established, the plaintiffs should not and can not be
deprived of their proprietary rights in the parcel of land sold by their co-owner
without their knowledge and consent. Leoncio Santos would be responsible for
warranty and eviction to the Civil Aeronautics Administration. If the Torrens
title does not show such shares of the plaintiffs in the parcel of land sold by
Leoncio Santos to the National Airports Corporation, then the action would not
lie against the National Airports Corporation or its successor, the Civil
Aeronautics Administration, but Leoncio Santos would be responsible to his
co-owners for the value of their shares in the parcel of land and of their
natural or civil fruits of which they had been deprived by the sale and
conveyance of the whole parcel of land to the National Airports Corporation by
Leoncio Santos. The accounting of rentals received would not affect the Civil
Aeronautics Administration, because it would be the exclusive liability of
Leoncio Santos.
The order appealed from dismissing the complaint as to the
Civil Aeronautics Administration is reversed and the case remanded to the lower
court for further proceeding’s in accordance with law. No costs shall be taxed.
Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo,
Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.
* 91 Phil., 203.