(Question XV, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam)
Annika sued the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and asked for the revocation of a deed of donation executed by her in favor of said Bureau. She alleged that, contrary to the terms of the donation, the donee failed to install lighting facilities and a water system on the property donated, and to build an office building and parking lot thereon, which should have been constructed and made ready for occupancy on or before the date fixed in the deed of donation.
The Republic invoked state immunity and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that it had not consented to be sued. Should the Republic’s motion be granted? (2.5%)
Under jurisprudence, the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Hence, the Government’s failure to abide by the conditions under which a donation was given should not prove an insuperable obstacle to a civil action, the consent likewise being presumed. The defense of immunity without the consent proves unavailing and is not material. Rule
In the case at bar, Annika’s donation came with conditions that were presumably agreed up on by the Government when it accepted the donated land. Accordingly, the Government cannot invoke state immunity to defeat to defeat the conditions imposed by Annika resulting in an injustice. Apply
Thus, the Republic’s motion should be denied. Conclusion
(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)
Lawyer, Author, Mentor