CityofCebuv.NAWASA,G.R.No.L12892,Apr.

30,1960

Facts:TheMunicipalityofCebu(Cebu)constructedseweranddrainagefacilities,knownastheOsmeffa
WaterworksSystem.In1948,thePublicServiceCommission(PSC)grantedCebuacertificateofpublic
conveniencetooperateandmaintaintheOsmefiaWaterworksSystem.In1955,RA1383createdthe
NationalWaterworksandSewerageAuthority(NAWASA)tohavejurisdiction,supervisionandcontrol
overallterritoryembracedbyMetropolitanWaterDistrict(MWD)aswellasareasservedbyexisting
governmentownedwaterworksincities,municipalitiesandmunicipaldistricts.Section8ofRA1383
dissolvedtheMWDandtransferreditsrecords.assetsandliabilitiestoNAWASA.Cebufiledacomplaint
fordeclaratoryreliefagainstNAWASA.

LowerCourt'sRuling:TheCFIheldthatRA1383isunconstitutionalinsofarasitvestsNAWASA
ownershipovertheOsmeflaWaterworksSystemwithoutjustcompensation.NAWASA,however,hasthe
rightofcontrol,jurisdictionandsupervisionovertheOsmefraWaterworksSystem.

Issues:WhetherRA1383providesforautomaticexpropriationoftheOsmefiaWaterworksSystem;
WhethertheOsmef,aWaterworksSystemisproprietary;andWhetherRA1383isavalidexerciseofpolice
power.

SupremeCourt'sRuling:TheSupremeCourtaffirmedthedecisionoftheCFI.RA1383failedtopresent
whatkindofassetsfromNAWASAshallbereceivedinequalvaluebythecities,municipalities,andother
governmentownedwaterworksandseweragesystemsinexchangefortheirassets.Thiskindof
compensationdoesnotsatisfiiconstitutionalprovisions.TheOsmeflaWaterworksSystemisproprietary.
OnlythoseofthegeneralpublicwhopaytherequiredrentalorchargeauthorizedbytheSystemmakeuse
ofthewater.Thesystemservesallwhopaycharges.Itisopentothepublic(thusmakingitpublicservice),
butonlyuponpaymentofacertainrental(thusmakingitproprietary).Amunicipalwatersystemdesigned
tosupplywatertotheinhabitantsforaprofitisacorporatefunctionofthemunicipality.Finally,the
transferofownershipoftheOsmefiaWaterworksSystemtoanothergovemmentalagencyisnotavalid
exerciseofpolicepower.Whilethepowertoenactlawsintendedtopromotepublicorder,safety,health,
moralsandgeneralwelfareisinherentineverysovereignstate,suchpowerisnotwithoutlimitations,such
astheconstitutionalprohibitionagainstthetakingofprivatepropertyforpublicusewithoutjust
compensation.RA1383isviolativeoftheConstitutionbecauseofthelackofprovisionregardingeffective
paymentofjustcompensation.

THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, plaintiff-

appellee,
vs.
CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE and
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,defendants-
appellants.
Facts:
Prior to its incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of
Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then
Zamboanga Province. On October 12, 1936, Commonwealth
Act 39 was approved converting the Municipality of
Zamboanga into Zamboanga City. Sec. 50 of the Act also
provided that Buildings and properties which the province
shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place
will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a
price to be fixed by the Auditor General.
Such properties include lots of capitol site, schools, hospitals,
leprosarium, high school playgrounds, burleighs, and hydro-
electric sites.
On June 6, 1952, Republic Act 711 was approved dividing the
province of Zamboanga into two (2): Zamboanga del Norte and
Zamboanga del Sur. As to how the assets and obligations of
the old province were to be divided between the two new ones,
Sec. 6 of that law provided Upon the approval of this Act, the
funds, assets and other properties and the obligations of the
province of Zamboanga shall be divided equitably between the
Province of Zamboanga del Norte and the Province of
Zamboanga del Sur by the President of the Philippines, upon
the recommendation of the Auditor General.
However, on June 17, 1961, Republic Act 3039 was approved
amending Sec. 50 of Commonwealth Act 39 by providing that,
All buildings, properties and assets belonging to the former
province of Zamboanga and located within the City of
Zamboanga are hereby transferred, free of charge, in favor of
the said City of Zamboanga.
This constrained Zamboanga del Norte to file on March 5,
1962, a complaint against defendants-appellants Zamboanga
City; that, among others, Republic Act 3039 be declared
unconstitutional for depriving Zamboanga del Norte of property
without due process and just compensation.
Lower court declared RA 3039 unconstitutional as it deprives
Zamboanga del Norte of its private properties.
Hence the appeal.
Issue:
Whether RA 3039 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it
deprives Zamboanga del Norte of its private properties.
Held:
No. RA 3039 is valid. The properties petitioned by Zamboanga
del Norte is a public property.
The validity of the law ultimately depends on the nature of the
50 lots and buildings thereon in question. For, the matter
involved here is the extent of legislative control over the
properties of a municipal corporation, of which a province is
one. The principle itself is simple: If the property is owned by
the municipality (meaning municipal corporation) in its public
and governmental capacity, the property is public and
Congress has absolute control over it. But if the property is
owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is
patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. The
municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and
payment of just compensation.
The capacity in which the property is held is, however,
dependent on the use to which it is intended and devoted.
Now, which of two norms, i.e., that of the Civil Code or that
obtaining under the law of Municipal Corporations, must be
used in classifying the properties in question?
Civil Code
The Civil provide: ART. 423. The property of provinces, cities,
and municipalities is divided into property for public use and
patrimonial property; ART. 424. Property for public use, in the
provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists of the provincial
roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains,
public waters, promenades, and public works for public service
paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities. All other
property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be
governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of
special laws.
Applying the above cited norm, all the properties in question,
except the two (2) lots used as High School playgrounds, could
be considered as patrimonial properties of the former
Zamboanga province. Even the capital site, the hospital and
leprosarium sites, and the school sites will be considered
patrimonial for they are not for public use. They would fall
under the phrase public works for public service for it has
been held that under the ejusdem generis rule, such public
works must be for free and indiscriminate use by anyone, just
like the preceding enumerated properties in the first paragraph
of Art 424. The playgrounds, however, would fit into this
category.
Law of Municipal Corporations
On the other hand, applying the norm obtaining under the
principles constituting the law of Municipal Corporations, all
those of the 50 properties in question which are devoted to
public service are deemed public; the rest remain patrimonial.
Under this norm, to be considered public, it is enough that the
property be held and, devoted for governmental purposes like
local administration, public education, public health, etc.
Final Ruling
The controversy here is more along the domains of the Law of
Municipal Corporations State vs. Province than along that
of Civil Law. If municipal property held and devoted to public
service is in the same category as ordinary private property,
then that would mean they can be levied upon and attached;
they can even be acquired thru adverse possession all these
to the detriment of the local community. It is wrong to consider
those properties as ordinary private property.
Lastly, the classification of properties other than those for
public use in the municipalities as patrimonial under Art. 424 of
the Civil Code is without prejudice to the provisions of
special laws. For purpose of this article, the principles,
obtaining under the Law of Municipal Corporations can be
considered as special laws. Hence, the classification of
municipal property devoted for distinctly governmental
purposes as public should prevail over the Civil Code
classification in this particular case.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside
and another judgment is hereby entered as follows:.
(1) Defendant Zamboanga City is hereby ordered to return to
plaintiff Zamboanga del Norte in lump sum the amount of
P43,030.11 which the former took back from the latter out of
the sum of P57,373.46 previously paid to the latter; and
(2) Defendants are hereby ordered to effect payments in favor
of plaintiff of whatever balance remains of plaintiffs 54.39%
share in the 26 patrimonial properties, after deducting
therefrom the sum of P57,373.46, on the basis of Resolution
No. 7 dated March 26, 1949 of the Appraisal Committee
formed by the Auditor General, by way of quarterly payments
from the allotments of defendant City, in the manner originally
adopted by the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. No costs. So ordered.
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of
Zamboanga 22 SCRA 1334
Facts
Prior to the incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of Zamboanga was the
provincial capital of Zamboanga Province. By virtue of Commonwealth Act 39, section 50
providing that the buildings and other properties that the Province will abandon in view of its
conversion as Zamboanga City shall be paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price to be
fixed by the Auditor General, the said properties consisting of 50 lots were identified and the
price were fixed thereof. An allotment for its payment was authorized by the BIR
Commissioner. In June 17, 1961, RA 3039 was approved and it amended section 50 of the
Commonwealth Act 39 providing that all buildings, properties, and assets belonging to the
Province of Zamboanga and located in the City of Zamboanga are transferred free of charge
in favor of the City of Zamboanga. The Province of Zamboanga del Norte filed a complaint
for declaratory relief with preliminary injunction contending that the RA 3039 is
unconstitutional as it deprives the Province of its properties without just compensation and
due process.

Issue

Whether or not RA 3039 is unconstitutional?

Held

The court held that to resolve the issue it is important to identify the nature of the properties
in dispute. The properties that are devoted for public purpose are owned by the province in
its governmental capacity. Those that are not devoted for public use remain as patrimonial
property of the Province. The RA 3039 is held valid in so far as the properties that are
devoted for public use or owned by the province in its governmental capacity and thus must
retain its public purpose. Hence these governmental properties need not be paid by the City
of Zamboanga.

With respect to the patrimonial properties from the 50 lots in dispute, the RA 3039 cannot be
applied in order to deprive the province of its own patrimonial properties that are not devoted
for public use. Hence the City of Zamboanga shall pay just compensation to the Province of
Zamboanga for these patrimonial properties.

TANO V SOCARATES

Abbas vs Comelec (179 SCRA 287)

Posted on June 30, 2013 by winnieclaire

Facts: The arguments against R.A. 6734 raised by petitioners may generally be categorized
into either of the following:
(a) that R.A. 6734, or parts thereof, violates the Constitution, and
(b) that certain provisions of R.A. No. 6734 conflict with the Tripoli Agreement.
Petitioner Abbas argues that R.A. No. 6734 unconditionally creates an autonomous region in
Mindanao, contrary to the aforequoted provisions of the Constitution on the autonomous
region which make the creation of such region dependent upon the outcome of the plebiscite.
In support of his argument, petitioner cites Article II, section 1(1) of R.A. No. 6734 which
declares that [t]here is hereby created the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, to be
composed of provinces and cities voting favorably in the plebiscite called for the purpose, in
accordance with Section 18, Article X of the Constitution. Petitioner contends that the tenor of
the above provision makes the creation of an autonomous region absolute, such that even if
only two provinces vote in favor of autonomy, an autonomous region would still be created
composed of the two provinces where the favorable votes were obtained.
The matter of the creation of the autonomous region and its composition needs to be clarified.
Held: Thus, under the Constitution and R.A. No 6734, the creation of the autonomous region
shall take effect only when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in
a plebiscite, and only those provinces and cities where a majority vote in favor of the Organic
Act shall be included in the autonomous region. The provinces and cities wherein such a
majority is not attained shall not be included in the autonomous region. It may be that even if
an autonomous region is created, not all of the thirteen (13) provinces and nine (9) cities
mentioned in Article II, section 1 (2) of R.A. No. 6734 shall be included therein. The single
plebiscite contemplated by the Constitution and R.A. No. 6734 will therefore be determinative
of (1) whether there shall be an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and (2) which
provinces and cities, among those enumerated in R.A. No. 6734, shall compromise it.
It will readily be seen that the creation of the autonomous region is made to
depend, not on the total majority vote in the plebiscite, but on the will of the
majority in each of the constituent units and the proviso underscores this. for if the
intention of the framers of the Constitution was to get the majority of the totality of
the votes cast, they could have simply adopted the same phraseology as that used
for the ratification of the Constitution, i.e. the creation of the autonomous region
shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
called for the purpose.
It is thus clear that what is required by the Constitution is a simple majority of votes
approving the organic Act in individual constituent units and not a double majority
of the votes in all constituent units put together, as well as in the individual
constituent units.
More importantly, because of its categorical language, this is also the sense in which the vote
requirement in the plebiscite provided under Article X, section 18 must have been understood
by the people when they ratified the Constitution.