Maria  G.  de Miranda is the registered owner of a lot in  Bacolod City suitable  for commercial  purposes front ing Araneta and  Gonzaga streets with an  area of  six hundred  ninety-five  (695)  square  meters.   On  said  lot she and  her husband  constructed  a building which was destroyed by fire  sometime  in  April,  1955.   When they : constructed said building, they were required by  the City Engineer to observe certain  requirement of an ordinance to the effect that all those who  may desire to build  upon Araneta street are required to recede their building line eight (8) meters from the road center-line.  Accordingly, the spouses  constructed their building  in such a manner that a portion of their lot with an  area of sixty-one  (61) meters was absorbed by Araneta street.

On April 12,  1955, the building was destroyed by fire. To  reconstruct it the spouses again applied for a permit from the  City Engineer.  The permit was granted subject however to the condition that they should reserve a portion of the lot and construct sidewalks on both  sides of Araneta  and Gonzaga streets.  This  requirement encroached further upon the spouses' lot by an overall width of three and seven tenth (3.7) meters from the curb line and reduced said lot by a total area of one hundred thirty-seven (137)  square meters.

Claiming that the City of Bacolod had taken possession of portions  of their lot fronting Gonzaga  and  Araneta streets without  the benefit  of  an expropriation  proceeding, the spouses instituted the present action praying that their possession of said portions be  restored  to  them or the City be  ordered to pay them a just compensation.

The City  of Bacolod filed a  motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint does  not state a cause of action in that the Gonzaga and Araneta streets which absorbed the portions mentioned therein  being part of the national road, the real party to be sued  is not  the City of Bacolod but the National Government.  During the hearing of the motion,  it was  admitted by plaintiffs that  Araneta and Gonzaga streets are classified as portions of the national road which belongs to the  National Government.  Thereupon, the trial court issued  an order sustaining the motion to dismiss, holding that  the City of  Bacolod is not the proper party  to be sued but the  National  Government, and,  therefore,  the complaint  fails to  state a  cause of action.  Hence this appeal.

When appellants applied  from the City Engineers for a permit to construct a building on their  lot fronting Gonzaga and Araneta streets, the permit was granted subject to the  condition that they  should observe the  provisions of existing laws, ordinances, and regulations.   Among the requirements to be observed are as follows:

1. "That  Gonzaga-Araneta Streets, being  designated  National Road  by Executive  Order  No. 194,  dated March 13,  1939, the National Road Right of Way of not  less than twenty (20) meters shall be  strictly  observed,  that  is,  plaintiff's' building  shall be constructed  not less  than (20)   meters away  from the other side of the National Road or not less  than  (10)  meters away from the center line of the road;
   
   
2. That the  building shall be  constructed with an arcade,  (Ordinance No. 151, Series of April  30, 1955).  The arcade shall be in such a way that it forms part of the building which is designated for conveniences of people doing  business with said building."

In  constructing  that  building  in line with  the permit granted them by the City Engineer, appellants religiously followed and observed the conditions  therein prescribed, particularly  those we quoted above.   But after  its construction  they instituted  the  present action contending that they were deprived of portions of their lot without payment of a just compensation.

There is  no  dispute  that the Gonzaga  and  Araneta streets are parts of the national  road, for the same had been so declared by  Executive  Order  No. 194 issued by; the President of the Philippines on March 13, 1939.  Appellants cannot  ignore that fact, for the same  appears expressly  as one of the conditions to be  observed  in the permit granted by the City Engineer for the construction of their building.   Being parts  of the national road, the same belong  to the  National Government.  In  fact, in said Executive Order No.  194, it is expressly  provided that "the construction, maintenance, and improvements of the national  roads  shall be accomplished  by the district and City engineers  under the supervision  of the Director of Public Works, and shall be financed from such appropriations as  may be authorized  by the National Government  in annual  or special appropriation  acts."   And  in that order, it is also required that "National roads shall have a right of way of not less than twenty (20) meters". It is, therefore,  apparent  from  said order that  while a national road belongs to the National Government its construction has to be undertaken by the City engineer, and it is in pursuance of this provision that the Araneta and Gonzaga streets which were declared parts of the national road were widened by the City of Bacolod,  thus requiring the absorption of certain portions of land adjoining the road belonging to private  owners.  It  is clear that the real party in interest is the National Government and that the City of Bacolod  merely acted as agent  or instrument in the improvement and widening of the streets in question.

But  it is conteded that the complaint should not have been dismissed with respect to its second cause of action because it  is there alleged that the City of Bacolod compelled appellants to construct an arcade as part of their building and in so doing a portion of their land was also taken without just compensation.

There is no merit in this claim.   It  appears that  said arcade was required by the City Engineer merely to comply with Ordinance No. 151, series of 1955, which requires the putting up of arcades on both sides of the  streets as a measure  of protection and safety of the  inhabitants against fire under the authority of the general welfare clause granted by law to local  governments.  Moreover, as the  trial court has  observed, "the court gathers from the pleadings  and  discussion of this case in open court that the alleged sidewalk is  an integral part of the national road, and therefore the claim in relation  to the alleged sidewalk is inseparable  from the  first cause of action."

As a final stand, appellants contends that if they were to  sue  the  National  Government, their  action  might be of no avail, considering the principle that the State cannot be  sued without its consent.  This  contention  overlooks one important detail:  if they have a valid money claim against the Government, they may  file  it  with the City Auditor, and if he disapproves it, they may appeal to the Auditor General, who has to act  thereon within sixty (60)  days; and if said  official denies  the claim, they may  appeal to the Supreme  Court.  All  this  they  can do under Commonwealth Act  No. 327, in connection with section  653  of the  Revised Administrative Code.

Wherefore,  the order appealed from  is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Paras, C.  J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.