AgencyDPFebruary32014

11 as a matter of fact the solicitor general in

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: n expropriation proceeding, the State cannot raise the alleged lack of authority of the counsel of the owner of the property to bind his client in a compromise agreement because such lack of authority may be questioned only by the principal or client. EMERGENCY RECIT: Facts: Before WWII, the Philippine Government filed an action for the expropriation of a parcel of land owned by Hashim for the construction of a public road. Government took possession over the property after the deposit of the amount of 23, 413.64. Records of the case were destroyed during the WWII. After the war, Hashim filed an action for money claims before the CFI against Bureau of Public Highways. The parties entered into a compromise agreement wherein the Bureau shall pay almost half of the amount claimed. The bureau failed to pay so Hashim filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Respondent judge granted the motion. The sheriff served the writ with a Notice of Garnishment to PNB against the Bureau's funds. Hashim further filed a motion for issuance of an order ordering the release of the amount. It was granted. PNB released the amount. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari with mandatory injunction to reimburse the amount released. Issues: 1. Whether or not the State may invoke its immunity from suit 2. Whether or not the State may impugn the validity of the compromise agreement 3. Whether or not the orders were valid Ruling: In expropriation proceedings, the State submits to the court's jurisdiction and asks the court to affirm its right to take the property sought to be expropriated. State immunity does not apply. Only the principal can question the authority of the counsel to enter into a compromise agreement. The state cannot raise it. The assailed orders are void. Government funds are not subject to garnishment. COMPLETE DIGEST: FACTS: On or about November 20, 1940, the Government of the Philippines filed a complaint for eminent domain in the Court of First Instance of Rizal1 fo...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online