Department of Education, Division of Albay, Represented by its schools Division

Superintendent, petitioner
versus
Celso Oate, respondent
G.R. No. 161758, June 8, 2007
Second Division, Velasco, J.

Statement of the Facts:

Spouses Claro Oate and Gregoria Los Baos owned disputed lot registered under
the Torrens System of land registration. They had three children: Antonio, Rafael,
and Francisco, all surnamed Oate. Respondent is the grandson of Claro Oate,
being the son of Francisco Oate.
In 1940, Bagumbayan Elementary School of Daraga, now known as Daraga North
Central Elementary School, constructed on a portion of the disputed lot.
Sometime in 1991, respondent filed a reconstitution proceeding with the Legaspi
City RTC, which consequently issued in the name of spouses Claro Oate and
Gregoria Los Baos.
On August 26, 1991, a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Cession was
executed by the respondent and his three sisters, who waived their successional
rights in favor of the respondent, asserting that the disputed lot was inherited by his
father, from his grandfather, by virtue of a prior partition among the three sons of
Claro Oate and Gregoria Los Baos, respondent in turn claimed ownership of said
lot through the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement.
Meanwhile, the heirs of Rafael Oate filed a petition before the Leagaspi City RTC
questioning whether the respondents father truly acquired the disputed lot. The
petition was dismissed by the court.
On December 15, 1992, through his counsel, respondent sent a letter to the
petitioner, proposing that they purchase the disputed lot, as well as reasonable
rentals from 1960.
On February 24, 1993, through his counsel, respondent likewise wrote to the District
Engineer regarding the on-going construction projects in the disputed lot. The
District Engineer answered the respondent, stating that the petitioner is the owner
of the disputed lot by virtue of a Deed of Donation executed by the Municipality of
Daraga.

Statement of the Case:

On March 18, 1993, respondent instituted before the Legaspi RTC a complaint for
Annulment of Donation and/or Quieting of Title with Recovery of Possession of the
disputed lot, against the petitioner and the Municipality of Daraga.

On April 28, 1993, Municipality of Daraga filed its answer, denying respondents
ownership of the disputed lot, stating that the municipality bought said lot from
Claro Oate sometime in 1940, and had occupied the disputed lot openly and
publicly in the concept of an owner until 1988 when the municipality donated the
disputed lot to the petitioner. Thus asserting that it could also claim ownership
through adverse possession. Moreover, the municipality claimed that the disputed
lot had been declared in the municipalitys name in the Municipal Assessors Office
from 1940 until 1988. Further, the municipality contended that respondent was
guilty of laches and was estopped from assailing ownership.
On April 29, 1993, petitioner filed its answer, reiterated in essence the defenses
raised by the Municipality of Daraga, and that the petitioner acquired the disputed
lot by virtue of a Deed of Donation executed on December 21, 1988. And that the
respondents claim was vague as it was derived from a void Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate and Cession. Petitioner likewise assailed the granting of the
reconstitution without notifying the petitioner.
Both parties presented documentary and testimonial evidence in the ensuing trial.
Petitioner also raised the issue that the respondents suit was against the State
which was prohibited without the latters consent. With the court rendering a
decision in favor of the respondent.
The petitioner and the Municipality of Daraga, elevated the matter to the Court of
Appeals.
The CA, on June 17, 1988, declared the appeal abandoned and dismissed due to
their failure to pay the required docket fees within the reglementary period.
Petitioner filed for a Motion for Reconsideration, and reinstating its appeal. The
Municipality of Daraga, however, totally lost its appeal due to inaction, with the
appellate court correspondingly issued a Partial Entry of Judgment on July 9, 1998,
dismissing the petition and affirming the trial courts decision in toto.
Hence, this petition for certiorari
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner may be
sued in violation of the States immunity from suit.
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner may be
sued independently of the Republic of the Philippines.

Ruling:
1. No. The Court rule that petitioner can be sued without its permission as a

result of its being privy to the Deed of Donation executed by the Municipality
of Daraga over the disputed property. When it voluntarily gave its consent to
the donation, any dispute that may arise from it would necessarily bring
petitioner down to the level of an ordinary citizen of the State vulnerable to a
suit by an interested or affected party. It has shed off its mantle of immunity
and relinquished and forfeited its armor of non-suability of the State.

2. No. The Republic of the Philippines need not be impleaded as a partydefendant in this case considering that it impliedly gave its approval to the
involvement of petitioner in the Deed of Donation. In a situation involving a
contract between a government department and a third party, the Republic
of the Philippines need not be impleaded as a party to a suit resulting from
said contract as it is assumed that the authority granted to such department
to enter into such contract carries with it the full responsibility and authority
to sue and be sued in its name.