Garcia v.

Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120

Facts: The plaintiff filed with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, an action to collect a
sum of money against the above defendants. He suffered injuries while undergoing a 10-month
military training at Camp Floridablanca, Pampanga. He filed a claim under Commonwealth Act
400 and in April 1957 with the Adjutant Generals Office which later disallow his claim for
disability benefit. After further demands of the plaintiff, the same Adjutant Generals Office
denied the claim, alleging that the Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed by RA
610 which took effect January 1, 1950. That by the reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff,
he was deprived of his sight or vision rendering him permanently disabled; and by the reason of
unjustified refusal of defendants on the claim, plaintiff was deprived of his disability pension
from July 1948 totalling no less than P4,000 at the rate of P20/mo and suffered moral damages
and attorneys fees the amount of P2,000. The Philippine Veterans Administration and the Chief
of Staff of AFP file separate motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; that the plaintiff failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies before coming to court; that the complaint states no cause of action;
and that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Acting on the said Motion,
the Court of First Instance, on March 2, 1962, rendered an order dismissing the complaint on
the ground that action has prescribed. Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been
denied, the plaintiff has interposed this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court is right in dismissing the complaint.

Held: The SC uphold the order of dismissal for the simple reason that the Court of First Instance
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, it being a money claim against the government. It
was already held in the case of New Manila Lumber vs. Republic in L-14248, 4/28/60, that a claim
for the recovery of money against the government should be filed with the Auditor General, in
line with the principle that the State can not be sued without its consent.

Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 US 345

FACTS:
Petitioners are creditors of the city of Manila before the cession of the Philippine Islands to the
United States. The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands denied relief, holding that the
present municipality is a totally different corporate identity from the previous one and is not
liable for the debts of the Spanish municipality.

ISSUE:
Is the present municipality liable for the obligations of the city incurred prior to the cession to
the United States?

HELD:
The contention that the liability of the city upon such obligations was destroyed by a mere
change of sovereignty is one which is without a shadow of moral force. The city, acting as a
corporation, possesses two kinds of powers: governmental and public. In view of the dual
character of municipal corporations, there is no public reason for the presuming their total
dissolution as a consequence of military occupation or territorial cession. The cession did not
operate as an extinction or dissolution of corporations. The present city is, in every legal sense,
the successor of the old. As such, it is entitled to the property and property rights of the
predecessor corporation, and is, in law, subject to all of its liabilities. All three of plaintiffs in
error are entitled to judgment.