Department of Education, Division of Albay, Represented by its school’s Division Superintendent, petitioner versus Celso Oñate, respondent GR !o "#"$%&, 'une &, ())$ Second Division, *elasco, J.
Statement of the Facts: Spouses Claro Oñate and Gre+oria os -años o.ned disputed lot re+istered under the /orrens System of land re+istration /hey had three children0 Antonio, Rafael, and 1rancisco, all surnamed Oñate Respondent is the +randson of Claro Oñate, bein+ the son of 1rancisco Oñate 2n "34), -a+umbayan Elementary School of Dara+a, no. 5no.n as Dara+a !orth Central Elementary School, constructed on a portion of the disputed lot Sometime in "33", respondent 6led a reconstitution proceedin+ .ith the e+aspi City R/C, .hich conse7uently issued in the name of spouses Claro Oñate and Gre+oria os -años On Au+ust (#, "33", a Deed of E8tra9udicial Settlement of Estate and Cession .as e8ecuted by the respondent and his three sisters, .ho .aived their successional ri+hts in favor of the respondent, assertin+ that the disputed lot .as inherited by his father, from his +randfather, by virtue of a prior partition amon+ the three sons of Claro Oñate and Gre+oria os -años, respondent in turn claimed o.nership of said lot throu+h the Deed of E8tra9udicial Settlement :ean.hile, the heirs of Rafael Oñate 6led a petition before the ea+aspi City R/C 7uestionin+ .hether the respondent’s father truly ac7uired the disputed lot /he petition .as dismissed by the court On December "%, "33(, throu+h his counsel, respondent sent a letter to the petitioner, proposin+ that they purchase the disputed lot, as .ell as reasonable rentals from "3#) On 1ebruary (4, "33;, throu+h his counsel, respondent li5e.ise .rote to the District En+ineer re+ardin+ the on<+oin+ construction pro9ects in the disputed lot /he District En+ineer ans.ered the respondent, statin+ that the petitioner is the o.ner of the disputed lot by virtue of a Deed of Donation e8ecuted by the :unicipality of Dara+a
Statement of the Case: On :arch "&, "33;, respondent instituted before the e+aspi R/C a complaint for Annulment of Donation and=or >uietin+ of /itle .ith Recovery of ?ossession of the disputed lot, a+ainst the petitioner and the :unicipality of Dara+a
On April (&, "33;, :unicipality of Dara+a 6led its ans.er, denyin+ respondent’s o.nership of the disputed lot, statin+ that the municipality bou+ht said lot from Claro Oñate sometime in "34), and had occupied the disputed lot openly and publicly in the concept of an o.ner until "3&& .hen the municipality donated the disputed lot to the petitioner /hus assertin+ that it could also claim o.nership throu+h adverse possession :oreover, the municipality claimed that the disputed lot had been declared in the municipality’s name in the :unicipal Assessor’s O@ce from "34) until "3&& 1urther, the municipality contended that respondent .as +uilty of laches and .as estopped from assailin+ o.nership On April (3, "33;, petitioner 6led its ans.er, reiterated in essence the defenses raised by the :unicipality of Dara+a, and that the petitioner ac7uired the disputed lot by virtue of a Deed of Donation e8ecuted on December (", "3&& And that the respondent’s claim .as va+ue as it .as derived from a void Deed of E8tra9udicial Settlement of Estate and Cession ?etitioner li5e.ise assailed the +rantin+ of the reconstitution .ithout notifyin+ the petitioner -oth parties presented documentary and testimonial evidence in the ensuin+ trial ?etitioner also raised the issue that the respondent’s suit .as a+ainst the State .hich .as prohibited .ithout the latter’s consent ith the court renderin+ a decision in favor of the respondent /he petitioner and the :unicipality of Dara+a, elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals /he CA, on 'une "$, "3&&, declared the appeal abandoned and dismissed due to their failure to pay the re7uired doc5et fees .ithin the re+lementary period ?etitioner 6led for a :otion for Reconsideration, and reinstatin+ its appeal /he :unicipality of Dara+a, ho.ever, totally lost its appeal due to inaction, .ith the appellate court correspondin+ly issued a ?artial Entry of 'ud+ment on 'uly 3, "33&, dismissin+ the petition and a@rmin+ the trial court’s decision in toto Bence, this petition for certiorari
Issues: " hether or not the Court of Appeals erred in rulin+ that petitioner may be sued in violation of the State’s immunity from suit ( hether or not the Court of Appeals erred in rulin+ that petitioner may be sued independently of the Republic of the ?hilippines
Ruling: 1. !o /he Court rule that petitioner can be sued .ithout its permission as a
result of its bein+ privy to the Deed of Donation e8ecuted by the :unicipality of Dara+a over the disputed property hen it voluntarily +ave its consent to the donation, any dispute that may arise from it .ould necessarily brin+ petitioner do.n to the level of an ordinary citien of the State vulnerable to a suit by an interested or aected party 2t has shed o its mantle of immunity and relin7uished and forfeited its armor of non
2.
!o /he Republic of the ?hilippines need not be impleaded as a party< defendant in this case considerin+ that it impliedly +ave its approval to the involvement of petitioner in the Deed of Donation 2n a situation involvin+ a contract bet.een a +overnment department and a third party, the Republic of the ?hilippines need not be impleaded as a party to a suit resultin+ from said contract as it is assumed that the authority +ranted to such department to enter into such contract carries .ith it the full responsibility and authority to sue and be sued in its name
