Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 96541 August 24, 1993
DEAN JOSE JOYA, CARMEN GUERRERO NAKP!, ARMDA SGUON REYNA, PRO".
RCARTE M. PURUGANAN, RMA POTENCANO, ADRAN CRSTO#A!, NGRD SANTAMARA,
CORA$ON "E!, AM#ASSADOR E. AGU!AR CRU$, "!ORENCO R. JACE!A, JR., MAURO
MA!ANG, "EDERCO AGU!AR A!CUA$, !UCRECA R. URTU!A, SUSANO GON$A!ES,
STE%E SANTOS, EP&RAM SAMSON, SO!ER SANTOS, ANG KU KOK, KERMA PO!OTAN,
!UCRECA KAS!AG, !GAYA DA%D PERE$, %RG!O A!MARO, !'AY'AY A. ARCEO,
C&ARTO P!ANAS, &E!ENA #ENTE$, ANNA MARA !. &ARPER, ROSA!NDA OROSA,
SUSAN CA!O MEDNA, PATRCA RU$, #ONNE RU$, NE!SON NA%ARRO, MANDY
NA%ASERO, ROMEO SA!%ADOR, JOSEP&NE DARANG, ()* PA$ %ETO P!ANAS, petitioners,
vs.
PRESDENTA! COMMSSON ON GOOD GO%ERNMENT +PCGG,, CATA!NO MACARAG, JR.,
-) .-s o//-0-(1 0(2(0-t3, ()*4o5 t.6 E760ut-86 S6056t(53, ()* C&ARMAN MATEO A.T.
CAPARAS, respondents.
M.M. Lazaro & Associates for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

#E!!OS!!O, J.:
All thirty-five (!" petitioners in this #pecial Civil Action for Prohibition and Manda$us %ith Prayer for
Preli$inary &n'unction and(or Restrainin) *rder see+ to en'oin the Presidential Co$$ission on ,ood
,overn$ent (PC,," fro$ proceedin) %ith the auction sale scheduled on -- .anuary -//- by
Christie0s of Ne% 1or+ of the *ld Masters Paintin)s and -2th and -/th century silver%are sei3ed
fro$ Malaca4an) and the Metropolitan Museu$ of Manila and placed in the custody of the Central
Ban+.
5he antecedents6 *n / Au)ust -//7, Mateo A.5. Caparas, then Chair$an of PC,,, %rote then
President Cora3on C. A8uino, re8uestin) her for authority to si)n the proposed Consi)n$ent
A)ree$ent bet%een the Republic of the Philippines throu)h PC,, and Christie, Manson and
9oods &nternational, &nc. (Christie0s of Ne% 1or+, or C:R&#5&E0#" concernin) the scheduled sale on
-- .anuary -//- of ei)hty-t%o (2;" *ld Masters Paintin)s and anti8ue silver%are sei3ed fro$
Malaca4an) and the Metropolitan Museu$ of Manila alle)ed to be part of the ill-)otten %ealth of the
late President Marcos, his relatives and cronies.
*n -< Au)ust -//7, then President A8uino, throu)h for$er E=ecutive #ecretary Catalino Macarai),
.r., authori3ed Chair$an Caparas to si)n the Consi)n$ent A)ree$ent allo%in) Christie0s of Ne%
1or+ to auction off the sub'ect art pieces for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.
*n -! Au)ust -//7, PC,,, throu)h Chair$an Caparas, representin) the ,overn$ent of the
Republic of the Philippines, si)ned the Consi)n$ent A)ree$ent %ith Christie0s of Ne% 1or+.
Accordin) to the a)ree$ent, PC,, shall consi)n to C:R&#5&E0# for sale at public auction the
ei)hty-t%o (2;" *ld Masters Paintin)s then found at the Metropolitan Museu$ of Manila as %ell as
the silver%are contained in seventy-one (>-" cartons in the custody of the Central Ban+ of the
Philippines, and such other property as $ay subse8uently be identified by PC,, and accepted by
C:R&#5&E0# to be sub'ect to the provisions of the a)ree$ent.
1
*n ;? *ctober -//7, the Co$$ission on Audit (C*A" throu)h then Chair$an Eufe$io C. @o$in)o
sub$itted to President A8uino the audit findin)s and observations of C*A on the Consi)n$ent
A)ree$ent of -! Au)ust -//7 to the effect that6 (a" the authority of for$er PC,, Chair$an Caparas
to enter into the Consi)n$ent A)ree$ent %as of doubtful le)alityA (b" the contract %as hi)hly
disadvanta)eous to the )overn$entA (c" PC,, had a poor trac+ record in asset disposal by auction
in the B.#.A and, (d" the assets sub'ect of auction %ere historical relics and had cultural si)nificance,
hence, their disposal %as prohibited by la%.
2
*n -! Nove$ber -//7, PC,, throu)h its ne% Chair$an @avid M. Castro, %rote President A8uino
defendin) the Consi)n$ent A)ree$ent and refutin) the alle)ations of C*A Chair$an @o$in)o.
3
*n
the sa$e date, @irector of National Museu$ ,abriel #. Casal issued a certification that the ite$s
sub'ect of the Consi)n$ent A)ree$ent did not fall %ithin the classification of protected cultural
properties and did not specifically 8ualify as part of the Cilipino cultural herita)e.
4
:ence, this petition
ori)inally filed on > .anuary -//- by @ean .ose .oya, Car$en ,uerrero Na+pil, Ar$ida #i)uion
Reyna, Prof. Ricarte M. Puru)anan, &r$a Potenciano, Adrian Cristobal, &n)rid #anta$aria, Cora3on
Ciel, A$bassador E. A)uilar Cru3, Clorencio R. .acela, .r., Mauro Malan), Cederico A)uilar Alcua3,
Ducrecia R. Brtula, #usano ,on3ales, #teve #antos, Ephrai$ #a$son, #oler #antos, An) Eiu Eo+,
Eeri$a Polotan, Ducrecia Easila), Di)aya @avid Pere3, Fir)ilio Al$ario and Di%ay%ay A. Arceo.
After the oral ar)u$ents of the parties on / .anuary -//-, %e issued i$$ediately our resolution
denyin) the application for preli$inary in'unction to restrain the scheduled sale of the art%or+s on
the )round that petitioners had not presented a clear le)al ri)ht to a restrainin) order and that proper
parties had not been i$pleaded.
*n -- .anuary -//-, the sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of
G-,7;,?7<.2? %ere turned over to the Bureau of 5reasury.
5
*n ! Cebruary -//-, on $otion of petitioners, the follo%in) %ere 'oined as additional petitioners6
Charito Planas, :elena Benite3, Ana Maria D. :arper, Rosalinda *rosa, #usan Carlo Medina,
Patricia Rui3, Bonnie Rui3, Nelson Navarro, Mandy Navasero, Ro$eo #alvador, .osephine @aran)
and Pa3 Feto Planas.
*n the other hand, Catalino Macarai), .r., in his capacity as for$er E=ecutive #ecretary, the
incu$bent E=ecutive #ecretary, and Chair$an Mateo A.5. Caparas %ere i$pleaded as additional
respondents.
Petitioners raise the follo%in) issues6 (a" %hether petitioners have le)al standin) to file the instant
petitionA (b" %hether the *ld Masters Paintin)s and anti8ue silver%are are e$braced in the phrase
Hcultural treasure of the nationH %hich is under the protection of the state pursuant to the -/2>
Constitution and(or Hcultural propertiesH conte$plated under R.A. <2<?, other%ise +no%n as H5he
Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection ActAH (c" %hether the paintin)s and silver%are are
properties of public do$inion on %hich can be disposed of throu)h the 'oint concurrence of the
President and Con)ressA
(d" %hether respondent, PC,, has the 'urisdiction and authority to enter into an a)ree$ent %ith
Christie0s of Ne% 1or+ for the sale of the art%or+sA (e" %hether, PC,, has co$plied %ith the due
process clause and other statutory re8uire$ents for the e=portation and sale of the sub'ect ite$sA
and, (f" %hether the petition has beco$e $oot and acade$ic, and if so, %hether the above issues
%arrant resolution fro$ this Court.
5he issues bein) interrelated, they %ill be discussed 'ointly hereunder. :o%ever, before proceedin),
%e %ish to e$phasi3e that %e ad$ire and co$$end petitioners0 3ealous concern to +eep and
preserve %ithin the country )reat %or+s of art by %ell-+no%n old $asters. &ndeed, the value of art
cannot be )ainsaid. Cor, by servin) as a creative $ediu$ throu)h %hich $an can e=press his
inner$ost thou)hts and unbridled e$otions %hile, at the sa$e ti$e, reflectin) his deep-seated
ideals, art has beco$e a true e=pression of beauty, 'oy, and life itself. #uch artistic creations )ive us
insi)hts into the artists0 cultural herita)e I the historic past of the nation and the era to %hich they
belon) I in their triu$phant, )lorious, as %ell as troubled and turbulent years. &t $ust be for this
reason that the fra$ers of the -/2> Constitution $andated in Art. J&F, #ec. -<, that is the sole$n
duty of the state to Hfoster the preservation, enrich$ent, and dyna$ic evolution of a Cilipino national
culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a cli$ate of free artistic and intellectual
e=pression.H And, in ur)in) this Court to )rant their petition, petitioners invo+e this policy of the state
on the protection of the arts.
But, the altruistic and noble purpose of the petition not%ithstandin), there is that basic le)al 8uestion
%hich $ust first be resolved6 %hether the instant petition co$plies %ith the le)al re8uisites for this
Court to e=ercise its po%er of 'udicial revie% over this case.
5he rule is settled that no 8uestion involvin) the constitutionality or validity of a la% or )overn$ental
act $ay be heard and decided by the court unless there is co$pliance %ith the le)al re8uisites for
'udicial in8uiry, na$ely6 that the 8uestion $ust be raised by the proper partyA that there $ust be an
actual case or controversyA that the 8uestion $ust be raised at the earliest possible opportunityA and,
that the decision on the constitutional or le)al 8uestion $ust be necessary to the deter$ination of
the case itself.
6
But the $ost i$portant are the first t%o (;" re8uisites.
*n the first re8uisite, %e have held that one havin) no ri)ht or interest to protect cannot invo+e the
'urisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an
action.
9
5his is pre$ised on #ec. ;, Rule , of the Rules of Court %hich provides that every action
$ust be prosecuted and defended in the na$e of the real party-in-interest, and that all persons
havin) interest in the sub'ect of the action and in obtainin) the relief de$anded shall be 'oined as
plaintiffs. 5he Court %ill e=ercise its po%er of 'udicial revie% only if the case is brou)ht before it by a
party %ho has the le)al standin) to raise the constitutional or le)al 8uestion. HDe)al standin)H $eans
a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or %ill sustain direct
in'ury as a result of the )overn$ental act that is bein) challen)ed. 5he ter$ HinterestH is $aterial
interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distin)uished fro$ $ere interest in
the 8uestion involved, or a $ere incidental interest.
:
Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff $ust
be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional ri)ht of so$e third and
related party.
9
5here are certain instances ho%ever %hen this Court has allo%ed e=ceptions to the rule on le)al
standin), as %hen a citi3en brin)s a case for $anda$us to procure the enforce$ent of a public duty
for the fulfill$ent of a public ri)ht reco)ni3ed by the Constitution,
1;
and %hen a ta=payer 8uestions
the validity of a )overn$ental act authori3in) the disburse$ent of public funds.
11
Petitioners clai$ that as Cilipino citi3ens, ta=payers and artists deeply concerned %ith the
preservation and protection of the country0s artistic %ealth, they have the le)al personality to restrain
respondents E=ecutive #ecretary and PC,, fro$ actin) contrary to their public duty to conserve the
artistic creations as $andated by the -/2> Constitution, particularly Art. J&F, #ecs. -< to -2, on Arts
and Culture, and R.A. <2<? +no%n as H5he Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act,H
)overnin) the preservation and disposition of national and i$portant cultural properties. Petitioners
also anchor their case on the pre$ise that the paintin)s and silver%are are public properties
collectively o%ned by the$ and by the people in )eneral to vie% and en'oy as )reat %or+s of art.
5hey alle)e that %ith the unauthori3ed act of PC,, in sellin) the art pieces, petitioners have been
deprived of their ri)ht to public property %ithout due process of la% in violation of the Constitution.
12
Petitioners0 ar)u$ents are devoid of $erit. 5hey lac+ basis in fact and in la%. 5hey the$selves
alle)e that the paintin)s %ere donated by private persons fro$ different parts of the %orld to the
Metropolitan Museu$ of Manila Coundation, %hich is a non-profit and non-stoc+ corporations
established to pro$ote non-Philippine arts. 5he foundation0s chair$an %as for$er Cirst Dady &$elda
R. Marcos, %hile its president %as Bienvenido R. 5antoco. *n this basis, the o%nership of these
paintin)s le)ally belon)s to the foundation or corporation or the $e$bers thereof, althou)h the
public has been )iven the opportunity to vie% and appreciate these paintin)s %hen they %ere placed
on e=hibit.
#i$ilarly, as alle)ed in the petition, the pieces of anti8ue silver%are %ere )iven to the Marcos couple
as )ifts fro$ friends and di)nitaries fro$ forei)n countries on their silver %eddin) and anniversary,
an occasion personal to the$. 9hen the Marcos ad$inistration %as toppled by the revolutionary
)overn$ent, these paintin)s and silver%are %ere ta+en fro$ Malaca4an) and the Metropolitan
Museu$ of Manila and transferred to the Central Ban+ Museu$. 5he confiscation of these properties
by the A8uino ad$inistration ho%ever should not be understood to $ean that the o%nership of these
paintin)s has auto$atically passed on the )overn$ent %ithout co$plyin) %ith constitutional and
statutory re8uire$ents of due process and 'ust co$pensation. &f these properties %ere already
ac8uired by the )overn$ent, any constitutional or statutory defect in their ac8uisition and their
subse8uent disposition $ust be raised only by the proper parties I the true o%ners thereof I
%hose authority to recover e$anates fro$ their proprietary ri)hts %hich are protected by statutes
and the Constitution. :avin) failed to sho% that they are the le)al o%ners of the art%or+s or that the
valued pieces have beco$e publicly o%ned, petitioners do not possess any clear le)al ri)ht
%hatsoever to 8uestion their alle)ed unauthori3ed disposition.
Curther, althou)h this action is also one of $anda$us filed by concerned citi3ens, it does not fulfill
the criteria for a $anda$us suit. &n Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,
13
this Court laid do%n the
rule that a %rit of $anda$us $ay be issued to a citi3en only %hen the public ri)ht to be enforced
and the conco$itant duty of the state are une8uivocably set forth in the Constitution. &n the case at
bar, petitioners are not after the fulfill$ent of a positive duty re8uired of respondent officials under
the -/2> Constitution. 9hat they see+ is the en'oinin) of an official act because it is constitutionally
infir$ed. Moreover, petitioners0 clai$ for the continued en'oy$ent and appreciation by the public of
the art%or+s is at $ost a privile)e and is unenforceable as a constitutional ri)ht in this action for
$anda$us.
Neither can this petition be allo%ed as a ta=payer0s suit. Not every action filed by a ta=payer can
8ualify to challen)e the le)ality of official acts done by the )overn$ent. A ta=payer0s suit can prosper
only if the )overn$ental acts bein) 8uestioned involve disburse$ent of public funds upon the theory
that the e=penditure of public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of ad$inisterin) an
unconstitutional act constitutes a $isapplication of such funds, %hich $ay be en'oined at the re8uest
of a ta=payer.
14
*bviously, petitioners are not challen)in) any e=penditure involvin) public funds but
the disposition of %hat they alle)e to be public properties. &t is %orthy to note that petitioners ad$it
that the paintin)s and anti8ue silver%are %ere ac8uired fro$ private sources and not %ith public
$oney.
Anent the second re8uisite of actual controversy, petitioners ar)ue that this case should be resolved
by this Court as an e=ception to the rule on $oot and acade$ic casesA that althou)h the sale of the
paintin)s and silver has lon) been consu$$ated and the possibility of retrievin) the treasure trove is
nil, yet the novelty and i$portance of the issues raised by the petition deserve this Court0s attention.
5hey sub$it that the resolution by the Court of the issues in this case %ill establish future )uidin)
principles and doctrines on the preservation of the nation0s priceless artistic and cultural possessions
for the benefit of the public as a %hole.
15
Cor a court to e=ercise its po%er of ad'udication, there $ust be an actual case of controversy I one
%hich involves a conflict of le)al ri)hts, an assertion of opposite le)al clai$s susceptible of 'udicial
resolutionA the case $ust not be $oot or acade$ic or based on e=tra-le)al or other si$ilar
considerations not co)ni3able by a court of 'ustice.
16
A case beco$es $oot and acade$ic %hen its
purpose has beco$e stale,
19
such as the case before us. #ince the purpose of this petition for
prohibition is to en'oin respondent public officials fro$ holdin) the auction sale of the art%or+s on a
particular date I -- .anuary -//- I %hich is lon) past, the issues raised in the petition have
beco$e $oot and acade$ic.
At this point, ho%ever, %e need to e$phasi3e that this Court has the discretion to ta+e co)ni3ance of
a suit %hich does not satisfy the re8uire$ents of an actual case or le)al standin) %hen para$ount
public interest is involved.
1:
9e find ho%ever that there is no such 'ustification in the petition at bar to
%arrant the rela=ation of the rule.
#ection ; of R.A. <2<?, as a$ended by P.@. ><, declares it to be the policy of the state to preserve
and protect the i$portant cultural properties and national cultural treasures of the nation and to
safe)uard their intrinsic value. As to %hat +ind of artistic and cultural properties are considered by
the #tate as involvin) public interest %hich should therefore be protected, the ans%er can be
)leaned fro$ readin) of the reasons behind the enact$ent of R.A. <2<?6
9:EREA#, the National Museu$ has the difficult tas+, under e=istin) la%s and
re)ulations, of preservin) and protectin) the cultural properties of the nationA
9:EREA#, inu$erable sites all over the country have since been e=cavated
for cultural relics, %hich have passed on to private hands, representin) priceless
cultural treasure that properly belon)s to the Cilipino people as their herita)eA
9:EREA#, it is perhaps i$possible no% to find an area in the Philippines, %hether
)overn$ent or private property, %hich has not been disturbed by co$$ercially-
$inded di))ers and collectors, literally destroyin) part of our historic pastA
9:EREA#, because of this the Philippines has been char)ed as incapable of
preservin) and protectin) her cultural le)aciesA
9:EREA#, the co$$erciali3ation of Philippine relics from the contact period, the
eolithic Age, and the Paleolithic Age, has reached a point perilously placin) beyond
reach of savants the study and reconstruction of Philippine prehistor!" and
9:EREA#, it is believed that $ore strin)ent re)ulation on $ove$ent and a li$ited
for$ of re)istration of i$portant cultural properties and of desi)nated national cultural
treasures is necessary, and that re)ardless of the ite$, any cultural property
e=ported or sold locally $ust be re)istered %ith the National Museu$ to control the
deplorable situation re)ardin) our national cultural properties and to i$ple$ent the
Cultural Properties Da% (e$phasis supplied".
Clearly, the cultural properties of the nation %hich shall be under the protection of the state are
classified as the Hi$portant cultural propertiesH and the Hnational cultural treasures.H H&$portant
cultural propertiesH are cultural properties %hich have been sin)led out fro$ a$on) the innu$erable
cultural properties as havin) e=ceptional historical cultural si)nificance to the Philippines but are not
sufficiently outstandin) to $erit the classification of national cultural treasures.
19
*n the other hand,
a Hnational cultural treasuresH is a uni8ue ob'ect found locally, possessin) outstandin) historical,
cultural, artistic and(or scientific value %hich is hi)hly si)nificant and i$portant to this country and
nation.
2;
5his Court ta+es note of the certification issued by the @irector of the Museu$ that the
&talian paintin)s and silver%are sub'ect of this petition do not constitute protected cultural properties
and are not a$on) those listed in the Cultural Properties Re)ister of the National Museu$.
9e a)ree %ith the certification of the @irector of the Museu$. Bnder the la%, it is the @irector of the
Museu$ %ho is authori3ed to underta+e the inventory, re)istration, desi)nation or classification, %ith
the aid of co$petent e=perts, of i$portant cultural properties and national cultural
treasures.
21
Cindin)s of ad$inistrative officials and a)encies %ho have ac8uired e=pertise because
their 'urisdiction is confined to specific $atters are )enerally accorded not only respect but at ti$es
even finality if such findin)s are supported by substantial evidence and are controllin) on the
revie%in) authorities because of their ac+no%led)ed e=pertise in the fields of speciali3ation to %hich
they are assi)ned.
22
&n vie% of the fore)oin), this Court finds no co$pellin) reason to )rant the petition. Petitioners have
failed to sho% that respondents E=ecutive #ecretary and PC,, e=ercised their functions %ith )rave
abuse of discretion or in e=cess of their 'urisdiction.
9:EREC*RE, for lac+ of $erit, the petition for prohibition and $anda$us is #$SM$SS%#.
#* *R@ERE@.
arvasa, C.&., Cruz, 'eliciano, Padilla, (idin, Gri)o*A+uino, ,egalado, #avide, &r., ,omero, ocon,
Melo, -uiason, Puno and .itug, &&., concur.

< "oot)ot6s
- ,ollo, pp. !!-??.
; ,ollo, pp. >-/.
,ollo, pp. <2-!.
< ,ollo, p. -2?.
! $/id.
? Cru3, &sa)ani A., Philippine Political Da%, -//- ed., p. ;!A @u$lao v. Co$$ission
on Elections, ,.R. No. D- !7;<!, ;; .anuary -/27, /! #CRA /;.
> #usti)uer v. 5a$ayo, ,.R. No. D-;/<-, ;- Au)ust -/2/, ->? #CRA !>/.
2 :ouse &nternational Buildin) 5enants Association, &nc. v. &nter$ediate Appellate
Court, ,.R. No. D->!;2>, 7 .une -/2>, -!- #CRA >7.
/ Bernas, .oa8uin B., 5he Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Fol. &&,
-/22 Ed., p. ;>/.
-7 5a4ada v. 5uvera, ,.R. No. D- ?/-!, ;< April -/2!, -? #CRA ;>A De)aspi v.
Civil #ervice Co$$ission, ,.R. No. D- >;--/, ;/ May -/2>, -!7 #CRA !7.
-- Pascual v. #ecretary of Public 9or+s, --7 Phil - (-/?7".
-; ,ollo, pp. -!?--!>.
- ,.R. No. D->;--/, ;/ May -/2>, -!7 #CRA !7.
-< Pascual v. #ecretary of Public 9or+s, --7 Phil - (-/?7".
-! ,ollo, pp. -><-->!.
-? See Note ?.
-> Manila .oc+ey Club, &nc. v. Montano .r., ,.R. No. D-;<<?!, ;2 Cebruary -/>>, >!
#CRA ;?<.
-2 @u$lao v. Co$elec, ,.R. No. D- !7;<!, ;; .anuary -/27, /! #CRA /;.
-/ #ec. ;, par. b, R.A. <2<?, as a$ended.
;7 #ec. , par. c, R.A. <2<?, as a$ended.
;- $d., #ecs. !->.
;; Bia+-na-Bato Minin) Co$pany v. 5anco, .r., ,.R. Nos. D-<;?>-?2, ;! .anuary
-//-, -/ #CRA ;.
5he Da%phil Pro'ect - Arellano Da% Coundation