Title
Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications
Case
G.R. No. L-10405
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1960
A provincial governor challenged the constitutionality of a law appropriating funds for private roads, arguing it served a private purpose. The Supreme Court ruled the appropriation unconstitutional, as public funds cannot benefit private interests, and upheld the petitioner's standing as a taxpayer.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10405)

Facts and Legislative Appropriation

Congress enacted Republic Act No. 920 on June 20, 1953, appropriating ₱85,000 for the “construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement” of feeder roads in the Antonio Subdivision. At enactment and approval, the designated roads were unbuilt, privately owned streets within Zulueta’s subdivision and did not serve existing public property or traffic.

Procedural History in the Trial Court

On August 31, 1954, Governor Pascual filed for declaratory relief and injunction, alleging the appropriation was illegal and void—both for lacking a public purpose and for violating the constitutional ban on legislator-interested contracts. Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of capacity and cause of action. On October 29, 1953 (sic), the trial court granted dismissal, upholding the appropriations and declining to entertain the governor’s challenge to the donation.

Public Purpose Doctrine and Constitutional Limits

Under the 1935 Constitution’s requirement that taxation and appropriations serve exclusively public purposes, the Court emphasized that incidental benefit to private parties cannot justify an appropriation. Jurisprudence from Philippine and American authorities confirms that public funds may not be devoted to private enterprise or advantage.

Constitutional Prohibition on Legislator-Interested Contracts

Senator Zulueta executed a “deed of donation” on December 12, 1953, purporting to give the feeder-road lots to the Republic, subject to reversion if used improperly. Article VI, Section 10 of the 1935 Constitution forbids members of Congress from being directly or indirectly interested in any government contract. The reversionary condition rendered the donation a contract, thereby violating the constitutional prohibition and civil law against contracts contrary to public policy (Civil Code, Art. 1409).

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Appropriation’s Invalidity

The Supreme Court held that the feeder roads were private property when RA 920 was passed and became effective. Accordingly, the appropriation lacked a public purpose and was void ab initio. The subsequent deed of donation—executed after the appropriation’s enactment—could not cure this fundamental const

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.