Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > December 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21763 December 17, 1966 MUNICIPALITY OF COMPOSTELA, CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21763. December 17, 1966.]

THE MUNICIPALITY OF COMPOSTELA, CEBU, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant.

Fiscal Anawas V. Maribao for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tomas Matic Jr. and Romualdo Valera, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY; POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE. — The National Government cannot appropriate patrimonial property of municipal corporations without just compensation and due process of law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO ADMINISTER. — The National Government may not assume the power of administration of patrimonial property of municipal corporations, if such action is based upon the aforementioned appropriation of said property by the State. In fact, it may not, by operation of law, assume such administration, without appropriating the title to the property, if the same or the income derived from its operation will be commingled with other property, either of the National Government or of other municipal corporations, in such a way as to permit the use of the property or income belonging to one of such corporations, for the benefit of another municipal corporation or of the State itself.

3. ID.; POWER TO FIX AND COLLECT FEES FOR THE WATER SUPPLIED. — Municipalities have authority to fix and collect fees for the water supplied by its waterworks system under Sections 2308(F) and 2317 of the Revised Administrative Code, as well as under Sec. 2 of Republic Act No. 2264.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Appeal by the National Waterworks and Sewerage authority— hereinafter referred to as NAWASA — from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Declaring the plaintiff Municipality of Compostela the true lawful and exclusive owner and possessor of the waterworks system in question, with the concomitant legal attributes of ownership, such as possession, administration, jurisdiction, supervision, operation and control over the same;

(2) Ordering the defendant Authority to restore to the plaintiff Municipality of Compostela the ownership, supervision, jurisdiction, administration, possession, operation and control of the waterworks system in question upon payment to the latter of the amount of P8,000.00, representing the value of the necessary and useful improvements introduced in the aforesaid waterworks system from the time that defendant Authority took possession and administration thereof;

(3) Ordering the herein plaintiff Municipality of Compostela to pay to the herein defendant Authority the sum of P8,000.00, representing the value of the necessary and useful improvements that it has introduced in the waterworks system in question."cralaw virtua1aw library

Sometime in 1940, plaintiff herein, the Municipality of Compostela, Province of Cebu, secured a P30,000 loan from the National Markets and Waterworks Fund, for the construction of a waterworks system within said municipality, pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 403. The construction was completed in December, 1940 and the system began to operate since January, 1941. As of the year 1953, the municipality had paid, on said pre-war loan, the sum of P8,889.29, as interest, and P192.10, as principal, thereby leaving a balance of P29,807.90, payment of which was later assumed by the National Government.

In March, 1956, the NAWASA, purporting to act pursuant to Republic Act No. 1383, approved on June 18, 1955, assumed the administration, operation and maintenance of said waterworks system, without the consent of plaintiff, which instituted the present action on October 25, 1960, to recover the ownership, possession, operation, jurisdiction, supervision and control over the aforementioned system, with the result adverted to above. Hence, this appeal by the NAWASA.

Appellant maintains that the waterworks system in question belongs to the National Government, because funds thereof had been used in the construction of the system. Said funds had been lent, however, to the plaintiff, which thereby became the owner thereof and, hence, of the system constructed therewith, subject to the corresponding obligation to pay the National Government. Surely, no such obligation would have existed had the system belonged, at the time of its construction, to the National Government. Although the municipality was, later, relieved of said obligation, this was due to its condonation by the National Government. Indeed, this condonation necessarily implied that the National Government was plaintiff’s creditor, a legal relation which could not have possibly existed had the system belonged, since its establishment in 1940, to the National Government.

The alleged sufficiency of Republic Act No. 1383 to justify the action taken by the NAWASA has been overruled by this Court in City of Baguio v. NAWASA (57 Off. Gaz. 1584), City of Cebu v. NAWASA, 107 Phil. 1105, Naguilian v. NAWASA, L-18540, (November 29, 1963), and La Carlota v. NAWASA, L-20232 (September 30, 1964), in which we held that the National Government can not appropriate patrimonial property of municipal corporations without just compensation and due process of Law. As a consequence, neither may the National Government assume the power of administration of patrimonial property of municipal corporations, if such action is based upon the aforementioned appropriation of said property by the State. In fact, it may not, by operation of law, assume such administration, without appropriating the title to the property, if the same or the income derived from its operation will be commingled with other property, either of the National Government or of other municipal corporations, in such a way as to permit the use of the property or income belonging to one of such corporations, 1 for the benefit of another municipal corporation or of the State itself. 2

Appellant, likewise, questions plaintiff’s authority to fix and collect fees for the water supplied by its waterworks system, but such authority is clearly deducible from Sections 2317 and 2308(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, as well as from Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264. 3

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant NAWASA. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P. Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Because it was derived from the operation of its patrimonial property.

2. 37 Am. Jur. p. 700; 62 C. J. S. p. 348; 33 Am. Jur. pp. 97-98; 103 A. L. R. p. 579.

3. "Municipal waterworks. —A municipal council shall have authority to acquire, construct, and maintain waterworks for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of the municipality with water; to regulate the supply and use of water therefrom; and to fix and collect rents for water thus supplied." (Sec. 2317, Rev. Adm. Code.)

"Miscellaneous Revenue. — The following species of revenues shall accrue to the respective municipalities:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(f) Proceeds on income from the sale, use, or management of any property lawfully held by the municipality." (Sec. 2308(f), Rev. Adm. Code).

"Sec. 2. Taxation. — Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, all chartered cities, municipalities and municipal districts shall have authority to impose municipal license taxes or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges in chartered cities, municipalities or municipal districts by requiring them to secure licenses at rates fixed by the municipal board or city council of the city, the municipal council of the municipality, or the municipal district council of the municipal district; to collect fees and charges for services rendered by the city, municipality or municipal district . . .." (Rep. Act No. 2264)




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21168 December 16, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-14441 December 17, 1966 PEDRO R. PALTING v. SAN JOSE PETROLEUM INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-21915 December 17, 1966 GEORGE W. LUFT COMPANY, INC. v. NGO GUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21803 December 17, 1966 BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. MANILA HOTEL WORKERS’ UNION-PTGWO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21775 December 17, 1966 CO PEK, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-19457 December 17, 1966 VICTORIO MERCADO, ET AL. v. FELIX R. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-18411 December 17, 1966 MAGDALENA ESTATES, INC. v. ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16394 December 17, 1966 JOSE STA. ANA, JR., ET AL. v. ROSA HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18328 December 17, 1966 DIOSDADA SABINO v. CONRADO CUBA

  • G.R. No. L-21763 December 17, 1966 MUNICIPALITY OF COMPOSTELA, CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-19740 December 17, 1966 SEVERINO GAGOLA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18630 December 17, 1966 APOLONIO TANJANCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17392 December 17, 1966 JOSE SORIANO v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

  • G.R. No. L-21335 December 17, 1966 ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. VIVENCIA ANDO PEPITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25641 December 17, 1966 RAFAEL M. ABAYA v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21601 December 17, 1966 NIELSON & COMPANY, INC. v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-19879 December 17, 1966 CINEMA, STAGE & RADIO ENTERTAINMENT FREE WORKERS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18089 December 17, 1966 VICTORINA ZABALLERO MILLAR v. RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16379 December 17, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAO WAN SING

  • G.R. No. L-18393 December 17, 1966 USAFFE VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19797 December 17, 1966 MARCIANA VILLOCINO, ET AL. v. PEDRO DOYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20011 December 17, 1966 PEDRO CABALAG, ETC., ET AL. v. ROXAS Y CIA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17742 December 17, 1966 DON VICENTE NOBLE v. MARIA S. NOBLE

  • G.R. No. L-18159 December 17, 1966 CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18826 December 17, 1966 ANTONIO Y. MAYUGA v. CESAR. R. MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, 1966 MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17571 December 17, 1966 HOSPICIA ENCABO, ET AL. v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-22395 December 17, 1966 STATE BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22209 December 17, 1966 PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25503 December 17, 1966 LEON DEL ROSARIO v. HON. BIENVENIDO CHINGCUANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-16745 December 17, 1966 AURORA CAMARA VDA. DE ZUBIRI v. WENCESLAO ZUBIRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19548 December 22, 1966 NICEFORO S. AGATON v. PATRICIO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26723 December 22, 1966 ARTHUR MEDlNA Y YUMUL v. MARCELO F. OROZCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20330 December 22, 1966 ADOLFO RACAZA v. SUSANA REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19297 December 22, 1966 MARVEX COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. PETRA HAWPIA & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19173 December 27, 1966 ROSE DESAMITO v. TRINIDAD CASAS-CUYEGKENG

  • G.R. No. L-21278 December 27, 1966 FEATI UNIVERSITY v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-21950 December 28, 1966 AMBROCIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVA BERROYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19460 December 28, 1966 ROQUE BAIRAN v. AGUSTIN TAN SIU LAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20406 December 29, 1966 ENRIQUE R. YU KING v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-19945 December 29, 1966 NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. PRISCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18210 December 29, 1966 LAURENTIO ARMENTIA v. ERLINDA PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18735 December 29, 1966 NARCISO DEL ROSARIO v. YATCO, ET AL.