G.R. No. L-20232 - SEPTEMBER 1964 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-20232September 30, 1964 Municipality of La Carlota vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) G.R. No. L-20150September 30, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Joaquin D. Doctor, et al. G.R. No. L-20146September 30, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Virgilo Oplado, et al. G.R. No. L-20103September 30, 1964 Manila Railroad Company vs. Conchita vda. de Chavez, et al. G.R. No. L-20077September 30, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Pacomio, et al. G.R. No. L-19830September 30, 1964 In re: Paul Teh vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19778September 30, 1964 Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union (PTUC) vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-19709September 30, 1964 In re: Andres Ong Khan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19583September 30, 1964 In re: Ong Bon Kok Uy Sae Tin vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19419September 30, 1964 In re: Gaw Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19107-09September 30, 1964 In re: Lao Yap Han Diok vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-18674September 30, 1964 Florentina Calma vs. Jose Montuya, et al. G.R. No. L-18596September 30, 1964 Alvarez Malaguit (MORO) vs. Felix Alipio, et al. G.R. No. L-17960September 30, 1964 In re: Sy Chu Sy Chhut vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-17194September 30, 1964 Primitivo Sato vs. Simeon Rallos, et al. G.R. No. L-17029September 30, 1964 Samuel S. Sharruf vs. Frank Bubla, et al. G.R. No. L-15418September 30, 1964 West Leyte Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Adelaido Salazar G.R. No. L-14888September 30, 1964 Mecedes Clemente, et al. vs. Jovito Bonifacio G.R. No. L-20111September 29, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Danilo E. Vargas G.R. No. L-19776September 29, 1964 Benjamin Chua vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19391September 29, 1964 Cecilio dela Cruz, et al. vs. Manuel Jesus dela Cruz G.R. No. L-19159September 29, 1964 Gliceria C. Liwanag, et al. vs. Luis B. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-16252September 29, 1964 Rosario Mas vs. Elisa Dumara-og, et al. G.R. No. L-17097September 29, 1964 Philippine Acetylene Company vs. Central Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22626September 28, 1964 Alice Foley vda. de Marcelo, et al. vs. Rafael S. Sison G.R. No. L-18866September 28, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Juan S. Alano G.R. No. L-18817September 28, 1964 Antonio G. Tady-y vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-18421September 28, 1964 Tomas Besa vs. Jose Castellvi, et al. G.R. No. L-17069September 28, 1964 Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. A.C. No. L-190September 26, 1964 Marcos Medina vs. Loreto U. Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-19132September 26, 1964 People of the Philippines vs. Alfonso Cañada G.R. No. L-17405September 26, 1964 Jose Agudo, Jr. vs. Jose R. Villanueva, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Municipality of La Carlota vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) People of the Philippines vs. Joaquin D. Doctor, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Virgilo Oplado, et al. Manila Railroad Company vs. Conchita vda. de Chavez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Pacomio, et al. In re: Paul Teh vs. Republic of the Philippines Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union (PTUC) vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. In re: Andres Ong Khan vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Ong Bon Kok Uy Sae Tin vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Gaw Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Lao Yap Han Diok vs. Republic of the Philippines Florentina Calma vs. Jose Montuya, et al. Alvarez Malaguit (MORO) vs. Felix Alipio, et al. In re: Sy Chu Sy Chhut vs. Republic of the Philippines Primitivo Sato vs. Simeon Rallos, et al. Samuel S. Sharruf vs. Frank Bubla, et al. West Leyte Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Adelaido Salazar Mecedes Clemente, et al. vs. Jovito Bonifacio People of the Philippines vs. Danilo E. Vargas Benjamin Chua vs. Republic of the Philippines Cecilio dela Cruz, et al. vs. Manuel Jesus dela Cruz Gliceria C. Liwanag, et al. vs. Luis B. Reyes, et al. Rosario Mas vs. Elisa Dumara-og, et al. Philippine Acetylene Company vs. Central Bank of the Philippines Alice Foley vda. de Marcelo, et al. vs. Rafael S. Sison People of the Philippines vs. Juan S. Alano Antonio G. Tady-y vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. Tomas Besa vs. Jose Castellvi, et al. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Marcos Medina vs. Loreto U. Bautista, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alfonso Cañada Jose Agudo, Jr. vs. Jose R. Villanueva, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

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:

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 ofCity of Baguio vs. NAWASA, 57 O.G. No. 9, p. 1584, and City ofCebu 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 ofCebu 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 ofBaguio 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.