Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Municipality of Carlota vs. Nawasa

    Uploaded by

    Romar John M. Gadot
    1) The municipality of La Carlota owned its waterworks system until 1955 when the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) assumed ownership under Republic Act No. 1383. 2) In 1960, La Carlota sued NAWASA seeking return of ownership, possession, administration, and control of the water system. The court ruled in favor of La Carlota. 3) On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while ownership cannot be transferred without compensation, allowing NAWASA jurisdiction and control would be equivalent to assuming ownership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Municipality of Carlota vs. Nawasa

    Uploaded by

    Romar John M. Gadot
    79 views2 pages
    1) The municipality of La Carlota owned its waterworks system until 1955 when the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) assumed ownership under Republic Act No. 1383. 2) In 1960, La Carlota sued NAWASA seeking return of ownership, possession, administration, and control of the water system. The court ruled in favor of La Carlota. 3) On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while ownership cannot be transferred without compensation, allowing NAWASA jurisdiction and control would be equivalent to assuming ownership.

    Original Title

    04. MUNICIPALITY OF CARLOTA VS. NAWASA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The municipality of La Carlota owned its waterworks system until 1955 when the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) assumed ownership under Republic Act No. 1383. 2) In 1960, La Carlota sued NAWASA seeking return of ownership, possession, administration, and control of the water system. The court ruled in favor of La Carlota. 3) On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while ownership cannot be transferred without compensation, allowing NAWASA jurisdiction and control would be equivalent to assuming ownership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views2 pages

    Municipality of Carlota vs. Nawasa

    Uploaded by

    Romar John M. Gadot
    1) The municipality of La Carlota owned its waterworks system until 1955 when the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) assumed ownership under Republic Act No. 1383. 2) In 1960, La Carlota sued NAWASA seeking return of ownership, possession, administration, and control of the water system. The court ruled in favor of La Carlota. 3) On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while ownership cannot be transferred without compensation, allowing NAWASA jurisdiction and control would be equivalent to assuming ownership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-20232 September 30, 1964

    MUNICIPALITY OF LA CARLOTA, plaintiff-appellee,


    vs.
    NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY (NAWASA), defendant-appellant.

    Rodolfo M. Uriarte, Rolando N. Medalla, Ernesto Ma. Uriarte and Abundio B. Huelar for plaintiff-
    appellee.
    Government Corporate Counsel for defendant-appellant.

    MAKALINTAL, J.:

    The municipality of La Carlota was the owner of the waterworks system serving its inhabitants until
    the enactment of Republic Act No. 1383 on June 28, 1955, when, by virtue of its provisions, the
    National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) assumed ownership and took over the
    supervision, administration and control of the said system, including the collection of water rentals
    from the consumers. On April 5, 1960 the municipality commenced this action in the Court of First
    Instance of Negros Occidental against the NAWASA for recovery and accounting. On September 27,
    1961 judgment was rendered as follows:

    EN VIRTUD DE LO EXPUESTO, el Juzgado falla esta causa condenando a la demandada


    para que restituya al demandante el dominio y titulo, asi como la posesion, supervision,
    administracion y control del sistema de traida de aguas del Municipio la Carlota.

    Se ordena, asimismo, a la demandada para que dentro del plazo de 30 dias a contar desde
    la fecha en que esta decision quede firme y ejecutoria, rinda una cuenta detallada de todas
    las cantidades cobradas por ella de los consumidores del sistema durante el periodo de
    tiempo desde que se hizo cargo del sistema hasta la fecha en que actualmente haya
    restituido al demandante dicho sistema.

    Por falta de pruebas, so sobresee la reconvencion interpuesta por la demandada.

    Las costas del juicio se tasaran en contra de la demandada. 1awphîl.nèt

    In the present appeal by the defendant it assigns one error in the judgment, namely, "in holding that
    the possession, administration, supervision and maintenance of the La Carlota water system is
    vested in the municipality of La Carlota ... even on the assumption that ownership of said system
    belongs to the municipality."

    The appellant concedes, on the authority of City of Baguio vs. NAWASA, 57 O.G. No. 9, p. 1584,
    and City of Cebu vs. NAWASA, G.R. No. 12892, April 20, 1960, that in so far as Republic Act No.
    1383 transfers ownership of the water system of the appellee to the appellant the said Act is
    unconstitutional because it does not provide for the payment of just compensation as required by the
    Constitution, the transfer being in the nature of expropriation of private (patrimonial) property.
    However, it is contended that although ownership may not thus be transferred, the law (Sec. 1) also
    authorizes the NAWASA to "have jurisdiction, supervision and control over ... all areas now served
    by existing government-owned waterworks and sewarage and drainage systems within the
    boundaries of cities, municipalities, and municipal districts in the Philippines ... . On this ground the
    appellant prays that the judgment appealed from be reversed in part and that the return to it of the
    "possession, supervision, administration and control of the La Carlota waterworks system" be
    ordered.

    In City of Cebu vs. NAWASA, supra, which was an action for declaratory relief, this Court did not
    squarely pass upon the question of whether, apart from ownership, the defendant could exercise
    "jurisdiction, supervision and control" over the Cebu waterworks system without paying just
    compensation. It is true that the trial court upheld the exercise of such right in its decision, leaving for
    future determination the question of what would constitute acts of ownership and what would be
    considered as an exercise of jurisdiction, supervision and control, but this Court on appeal did not
    treat the particular matter as an issue before it and neither passed upon it nor rendered a ruling
    thereon. That case is therefore no authority for the position of the appellant here as presented in its
    lone assignment of error. Neither may it find support in the statement in our decision in City
    of Baguio vs. NAWASA, supra, that "unless this aspect of the law (concerning payment of just
    compensation) is clarified and appellee is given its due compensation, appellee cannot be deprived
    of its property even if appellant desires to take over the administration in line with the spirit of the
    law." This Court, in said decision, took note of the authorities cited by the appellant therein to sustain
    its contention that Congress has the power, without impairing vested rights, to transfer property of a
    municipal corporation from one government agency to another as long as such property continues to
    be devoted to its original purpose. But the decision precisely pointed out that those authorities are
    not in point, since the transfers involved therein were merely for purposes of administration, the
    ownership of and benefits from the property being retained by the municipal corporations concerned,
    whereas the clear intent of Republic Act No. 1383 "is to effect a real transfer of the ownership of the
    waterworks ... and does not merely encompass a transfer of administration."

    It is hard to conceive how the jurisdiction, supervision and control of the appellee's waterworks
    system may be vested in the appellant without destroying the integrity of the appellee's right of
    dominion. Ownership is nothing without the inherent rights of possession, control and enjoyment.
    Where the owner is deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use of his property or of its value by its
    being diverted to public use, there is taking within the constitutional sense. Tañada & Fernando,
    Constitution of the Philippines, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 215-216. Such deprivation would be the certain
    consequence if, as prayed for by the appellant, it should be allowed to assume jurisdiction,
    supervision and control over the waterworks system of the appellee. That would be little less than an
    assumption of ownership itself and not of mere administration.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., and
    Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
    Concepcion and Barrera, JJ., took no part.

    The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

    You might also like