"prescription does not lie against the State"

From the foregoing disquisition, it is clear that this Court's ruling on the issue of prescription is not grounded upon provisions of the Civil Code, specifically Article 1108(4)71 thereof. Instead, the mention thereof was intended merely to convey that if the principle that "prescription does not lie against the State" can be applied with regard to property disputes, what more if the underlying consideration is public interest.

To be clear, this Court is not abolishing the limitation set by the rules in instituting a petition for quo warranto. The one-year prescriptive period under Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court still stands. However, for reasons explained above and in the main Decision, this Court made distinctions as to when such prescriptive period applies, to wit: 

(1) when filed by the State at its own instance, through the Solicitor General, 72 prescription shall not apply. This, of course, does not equate to a blanket authority given to the Solicitor General to indiscriminately file baseless quo warranto actions in disregard of the constitutionally-protected rights of individuals;

 (2) when filed by the Solicitor General or public prosecutor at the request and upon relation of another person, with leave of court, 73 prescription shall apply except when established jurisprudential exceptions 74 are present; and

 (3) when filed by an individual in his or her own name, 75 prescription shall apply, except when established jurisprudential exceptions are present.

 In fine, Our pronouncement in the assailed Decision as to this matter explained that certain circumstances preclude the absolute and strict application of the prescriptive period provided under the rules in filing a petition for quo warranto.

EN BANC  

June 19, 2018

G.R. No. 237428

REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner
vs.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent