Primary Holding

Republic Act 3039 is constitutional insofar as it transfers properties of the former Zamboanga province used for governmental purposes (public properties) to Zamboanga City without compensation, but unconstitutional for properties not used for such purposes (patrimonial properties), as the latter requires due process and just compensation for valid transfer.

Background

The Municipality of Zamboanga was the capital of Zamboanga Province. Commonwealth Act 39 converted the Municipality into Zamboanga City and stipulated that the City would purchase provincial properties in Zamboanga City when the capital moved. The capital moved to Dipolog, and later Republic Act 711 divided Zamboanga Province into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur. Republic Act 3039 later amended Commonwealth Act 39 to transfer the properties to Zamboanga City for free, leading to this legal challenge by Zamboanga del Norte, seeking payment for its share of the properties.

Facts

• 1. 50 lots with buildings in Zamboanga City, titled to Zamboanga Province, were subject of the dispute.
• 2. These properties were used as capitol site, school sites, hospital sites, leprosarium, trade school, playgrounds, etc. and some were vacant.
• 3. Commonwealth Act 39 initially required Zamboanga City to purchase these properties when the provincial capital moved.
• 4. Republic Act 3039 later mandated the free transfer of these properties to Zamboanga City.
• 5. Zamboanga del Norte, as successor to a portion of the old Zamboanga province, claimed ownership of a share of these properties and sought payment as originally stipulated in Commonwealth Act 39, arguing that Republic Act 3039 was unconstitutional.
• 6. Zamboanga City claimed the properties were validly transferred for free under Republic Act 3039 and were public properties under legislative control.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Republic Act 3039 is unconstitutional as it deprives Zamboanga del Norte of its private property without due process and just compensation.
• 2. Zamboanga del Norte has a vested right to be paid for its share of the properties, based on Commonwealth Act 39 and the Auditor General's valuation.
• 3. The properties are patrimonial, not public, and therefore cannot be taken without compensation.
• 4. The return of partial payments already made to Zamboanga City was illegal.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Republic Act 3039 is constitutional as it is within the power of Congress to dispose of public property.
• 2. The properties in question are public properties of the former Zamboanga Province, and therefore subject to the absolute control of Congress.
• 3. The legislative intent of Republic Act 3039 was to transfer these properties to Zamboanga City without cost.
• 4. Zamboanga del Norte is not entitled to compensation as the properties are public.

Issues

• 1. Is Republic Act 3039 unconstitutional for depriving Zamboanga del Norte of property without due process and just compensation?
• 2. Are the 50 properties in question considered public or patrimonial property of the former Zamboanga Province?
• 3. Is Zamboanga del Norte entitled to compensation from Zamboanga City for its share of the properties?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the validity of Republic Act 3039 depends on the nature of the properties: public or patrimonial.
• 2. Properties devoted to public service (like capitol site, school sites, hospital sites, leprosarium, playgrounds) are considered public property of the municipal corporation and are under the absolute control of Congress. Republic Act 3039 is valid regarding these public properties, allowing their transfer to Zamboanga City without compensation.
• 3. Properties not devoted to public service (vacant lots, Burleighs, San Roque, Hydro-Electric site), are considered patrimonial property. Republic Act 3039 is unconstitutional insofar as it attempts to transfer these patrimonial properties without due process and just compensation. Zamboanga del Norte is entitled to be compensated for its share of these patrimonial properties.
• 4. Zamboanga City was ordered to return the amount of P43,030.11 it had taken back from Zamboanga del Norte in lump sum.
• 5. The remaining balance for the patrimonial properties should be paid by Zamboanga City to Zamboanga del Norte in quarterly installments, as originally arranged.

Doctrines

• 1. Public vs. Patrimonial Property of Municipal Corporations: Properties of municipal corporations are classified as either public (for public use or governmental purposes) or patrimonial (private or proprietary).
• 2. Legislative Control over Public Property: Congress has absolute control over the public property of municipal corporations and can dispose of it without compensation.
• 3. Due Process and Just Compensation for Patrimonial Property: Patrimonial property of municipal corporations is treated like private property and cannot be taken without due process and just compensation.
• 4. Ejusdem Generis Rule: In interpreting "public works for public service" in Article 424 of the Civil Code, such works must be for free and indiscriminate use by anyone, similar to the preceding enumerated properties like roads and squares.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "If the property is owned by the municipality (meaning municipal corporation) in its public and governmental capacity, the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. But if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. The municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of just compensation."
• 2. "The classification of municipal property devoted for distinctly governmental purposes as public should prevail over the Civil Code classification in this particular case."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Municipality of Catbalogan v. Director of Lands: Cited to support the view that capitol and school sites in municipalities constitute patrimonial properties under Civil Code classification.
• 2. Municipality of Tacloban v. Director of Lands: Cited similarly to Catbalogan case.
• 3. Hinunangan v. Director of Lands: Cited to support the view under Municipal Corporation Law that lands occupied for public purposes like municipal buildings and schools are considered public.
• 4. Viuda de Tantoco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo: Cited to support that municipal properties necessary for governmental purposes are public, exemplified by auto trucks for street sprinkling and police vehicles.
• 5. Municipality of Batangas v. Cantos: Cited to support that a municipal lot devoted to school purposes is for public use and not patrimonial.
• 6. Cebu City v. NWSA: Cited in relation to the interpretation of "public works for public service" and the ejusdem generis rule.
• 7. Republic v. Sioson, Hodges v. City of Iloilo: Cited regarding registration not converting public property to private.
• 8. Municipality of Naguilian v. NWSA: (Cited in footnote referencing McQuillin and Martin) General citation for principles of municipal corporations.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Commonwealth Act 39, Section 50: Original law converting Zamboanga Municipality to Zamboanga City and providing for purchase of provincial properties by the city.
• 2. Republic Act 286: Created Molave and made it capital of Zamboanga Province.
• 3. Republic Act 711, Section 6: Divided Zamboanga Province into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur, providing for asset division.
• 4. Republic Act 3039: Amended Commonwealth Act 39 to transfer properties to Zamboanga City for free.
• 5. Civil Code, Articles 423 and 424: Classify property of provinces, cities, and municipalities into property for public use and patrimonial property.
• 6. Rule 62, Section 6, Rules of Court: Authorizes conversion of declaratory relief proceedings to ordinary actions.
• 7. Republic Act 2264, Sec. 3: (Cited in footnote 14) Grants provinces, cities, and municipalities the power to undertake public works projects.
• 8. Civil Code, Article 1169: Mentioned by plaintiff but found inapplicable by the court regarding lump sum payment, due to lack of complete delivery of properties.