Thursday, November 8, 2018

[CASE DIGEST] PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA (G.R. No. L-24440)


March 28, 1968

Ponente: Bengzon, J. 

FACTS:

·         The municipality of Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga Province. But by virtue of C.A. 39, the Municipality of Zamboanga was converted into a chartered city. 

·         Sec. 50 of C.A. 39 stated that “all the abandoned properties of the province upon the transfer of the capital to another place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price fixed by the Auditor General.” These properties consisted of 50 lots, excluding buildings constructed thereon.

·         In 1947, the Appraisal Committee formed by the Auditor General fixed the value of the properties and buildings in question at P1,294,244.00. 

·         In 1952, R.A. 711 was approved, which divided the province of Zamboanga into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur. Sec. 6 of R.A. 711 provided for the division of the assets and obligations of the old province between the two new ones. In 1955, the Auditor General apportioned the assets and obligations of the defunct Province of Zamboanga as follows: 54.39% for Zamboanga del Norte (P704,220.05) and 45.61% for Zamboanga del Sur, both payable by Zamboanga City. 

·         In 1959, the Executive Secretary issued a ruling holding that Zamboanga del Norte had a vested right on the properties mentioned in Sec. 50 of C.A. 39, and was therefore entitled to the price thereof payable by Zamboanga City.  This ruling revoked the previous Cabinet Resolution of July 13, 1951 conveying all 50 lots to Zamboanga City for P1.00 effective 1945 when provincial capital was transferred to Dipolog. Subsequently, the Secretary of Finance authorized the CIR to deduct 25% of Zamboanga City’s regular internal revenue allotment for three quarters. This totaled toP57,373.46 credited to Zamboanga del Norte in partial payment of P704,220.05 due it.

·         In 1961, however, R.A. 3039 was passed, effectively amending Sec. 50 of C.A. 39. As per the new law: “All buildings, properties, and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within the City of Zamboanga are transferred free of charge in favor of the latter.” This prompted the Secretary of Finance to order the CIR to stop further payments to Zamboanga del Norte, and to return to Zamboanga City the sum of P57,373.46 taken from it out of the internal revenue allotments.
·         In 1962, the province of Zamboanga del Norte filed a complaint alleging that  R.A. 3039 was unconstitutional for depriving the province of property without due process and just compensation. 

·         On August 12, 1963, R.A. 3039 was rendered unconstitutional by the lower court for depriving Zamboanga del Norte of its private properties. Hence, the instant appeal by the City of Zamboanga.

RULING: 

Lower court's ruling declaring R.A. 3039 unconstitutional is reversed. Zamboanga City is ordered to return to the province of Zamboanga del Norte in lump sum the amount of P43,030.11 which the city took back from the latter. Quarterly payments from the internal allotments of Zamboanga City in the manner originally adopted by the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are reinstated.

Whether or not R.A. 3039 is unconstitutional.—NO.  

·         R.A. 3039 is valid insofar as it affects the lots used as capitol site, school sites and its grounds, hospital and leprosarium sites and the high school playground sites — a total of 24 lots — since these were held by the former Zamboanga province in its governmental capacity and therefore are subject to the absolute control of Congress. 

·         The rest of the 26 remaining lots, however, are patrimonial properties since they are not being utilized for distinctly governmental purposes. Therefore, these 26 lots are to be paid for by Zamboanga City to both Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur following the original 1955 scheme: 54.39% for Zamboanga del Norte and 45.61% for Zamboanga del Sur.

·         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.