Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10405)
Facts:
Wenceslao Pascual, in His Official Capacity as Provincial Governor of Rizal, Petitioner and Appellant v. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications, et al., G.R. No. L-10405. December 29, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.On August 31, 1953, Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, filed a petition for declaratory relief with injunction challenging an item in Republic Act No. 920 (approved June 20, 1953). Section 1-C(a), item 43(h) of that Act appropriated P85,000 “for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement” of certain “Pasig feeder road terminals” identified as projected streets within the Antonio Subdivision in Pasig, Rizal. The petition alleged that at the time of passage and approval the feeder roads were private, unbuilt subdivision streets located on lands owned by respondent Jose C. Zulueta, then a Senator, and that the appropriation therefore served a private rather than public purpose and was void ab initio.
The petition further alleged that on December 12, 1953—more than five months after the Act’s approval—Zulueta executed an alleged deed of donation of the parcels for street purposes in favor of the Government, accepted by the Executive Secretary, but that this post‑enactment donation was made to give a “semblance of legality” to the appropriation and, being subject to an onerous reverter condition, resembled a contract that would contravene the constitutional prohibition on members of Congress being financially interested in contracts with the Government.
Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of legal capacity to sue and failure to state a cause of action. Zulueta argued the donation was a pure act of liberality (not a contract), and that a law approved by Congress and the President cannot be illegal. Other respondents argued Pascual lacked a personal and substantial interest and that taxpayers or provincial officials could not assail the appropriation.
The Court of First Instance of Rizal (trial court) granted the motions to dismiss and dissolved the preliminary injunction in a decision dated October 29, 1953. The trial court held (a) that the Provincial Governor and provincial fiscal had the requisite personalities to question the constitutionality of the appropriation because public interest was involved, but (b) that petitioner’s interests were not directly affected so as to permit him to contest the validity of the donation; accordingly the appropriation was upheld and the action dismissed.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Does petitioner have the legal capacity (standing) to challenge the constitutionality of the appropriation in Republic Act No. 920?
- Was the P85,000 appropriation for the construction of the Pasig feeder roads a valid exercise of the taxing and appropriating power (i.e., a public purpose) when the lands were private at the time of the Act’s passage and approval?
- Can a subsequent deed of donation executed after the Act’s approval cure the constitutional infirmity of an appropriation which sought a private purpose, and is the donation (being subject to an onerous condition) itself a contract violative of the constitutional prohibition agains...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)