7/29/2019 LocGov Case Digests

1/1

PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE VS. CITY OFZAMBOANGAFACTS: After the incorporation of the Municipality of Zamboanga as a chartered city, petitioner provincecontends that facilities belonging to the latter and locatedwithin the City of Zamboanga will be acquired and paid forby the said city.However, respondent city avers that pursuant to RA No.3039 providing for the transfer free of charge of all

buildings, properties and assets belonging to the formerprovince of Zamboanga and located within the City of Zamboanga to the said City.ISSUE: Whether or not facilities which the province shallabandon will be acquired by the city upon justcompensation.HELD:Yes, If the property is owned by the municipality in itspublic and governmental capacity, the property is publicand can be transferred free of charge. But if the property isowned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it ispatrimonial and can be expropriated upon payment of justcompensation.

VILLANUEVA, ET. AL. VS CASTAEDA, JR., ET. AL.

Facts: In the vicinity of the public market of San Fernando,Pampanga, there stands on a strip of land, a conglomerationof vendors stalls together. The petitioners claim they have aright to remain in and conduct business in this area byvirtue of a previous authorization (Resolution no. 28)granted to them by the municipal government. Therespondents deny this and justify the demolition of theirstalls as illegal constructions on public property permunicipal council Resolution G.R. No. 29, which declaredthe subject area as "the parking place and as the public

plaza of the municipality, thereby impliedly revokingResolution No. 218.

Issue: WON petitioners have the right to occupy the subjectland.

Ruling: Petition Dismissed.It is a well-settled doctrine that the town plaza cannot beused for the construction of market stalls, and that suchstructures constitute a nuisance subject to abatementaccording to law. The petitioners had no right in the firstplace to occupy the disputed premises and cannot insist inremaining there now on the strength of their alleged leasecontracts. Even assuming a valid lease of the property indispute, the resolution could have effectively terminatedthe agreement for it is settled that the police power cannotbe surrendered or bargained away through the medium of acontract. Hence, the loss or damage caused to petitioners,in the case at bar, does not constitute a violation of a legalright or amount to a legal wrong - damnum absque injuria.

CITY OF BAGUIO V. NAWASA

Facts : Plaintiff a municipal corporation filed

a complaint against defendant a public corporation, createdunder Act.1383. It contends that the said act does notinclude within its purview the Baguio Water Works system,assuming that it does, is unconstitutional because itdeprives the plaintiff ownership, control and operation of said water works without just compensation anddue process of law. The defendant filed a motion to dismission the ground that it is not a proper exercise of policepower and eminent domain. The court denied the motionand ordered the defendants to file an answer. The courtholds that the water works system of Baguio belongs to

private property and cannot be expropriated without just compensation. Sec. 8 of R.A.1383 provides for theexchange of the NAWASA assets for the value of the waterworks system of Baguio is unconstitutional for this is not

just compensati on. Defendants motion for reconsiderationwas denied hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or Not there is a valid exercise of policepower of eminent domain.

Held: R.A. 1383 does not constitute a valid exercise of policepower. The act does not confiscate, destroy or appropriateproperty belonging to a municipal corporation. It merelydirects that all water works belonging to cities,municipalities and municipal districts in the Philippines to betransferred to the NAWASA. The purpose is placing themunder the control and supervision of an agency with a viewto promoting their efficient management, but in so doingdoes not confiscate them because it directs that they bepaid with equal value of the assets of NAWASA.The Baguio water works system is not like a public road, thepark, street other public property held in trust by amunicipal corporation for the benefit of the public. But it isa property of a municipal corporation, water works cannotbe taken away except for public use and upon payment of

just compensation. Judgment affirmed.

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/city-of-baguio-v-nawasa-106-phil-gr-no.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/city-of-baguio-v-nawasa-106-phil-gr-no.html