Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24440
June 30, 1969
THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, plaintiffappellee,
vs.
CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,defendantsappellants.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Professing respect for the principles enunciated by this
Court in its decision of 28 March 1968, in Case G. R. No. L24440, entitled Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of
Zamboanga, et al., 1 the appellant City seeks reconsideration
of our decision in so far as the latter declares that Republic
Act 3039 is unconstitutional and void in so far as the same
seeks to deprive the Province of Zamboanga del Norte of its
share in the 26 lots situated within the City of Zamboanga,
and hereinafter enumerated, without just compensation, for
the reason that said 26 lots are patrimonial property of the
old Province of Zamboanga. Said 26 lots are declared in the
main decision to be the following:
TCT Number
Lot Number
Use
5577 .......................... 177
13198 .........................
5569
5558
5559
5560
5561
5563
5566
5568
5574
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
5575 ..........................
5576 ..........................
5578 ..........................
5579 ..........................
5580 ..........................
5581 ..........................
5582
5584
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
127D
169
175
188
183
186
191
176
179
196
181A
181B
182
197
195
159B
194
190
184
187
189
192
193
185
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Mydro,
Magay
San
Roque
Burleigh2
Vacant
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.......................
"
.......................
"
..........................
..........................
..........................
"
"
"
.........................
"
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
7379 .......................... 4147 ..........................
"
The movant City contends that the 26 lots aforestated were
not patrimonial property of the former Province of
Zamboanga, for the reason that said 26 lots have always
been used for public purposes, such as school sites,
playgrounds and athletic fields for schools.
To bolster its contention, the City of Zamboanga submitted
photographs, plans and a sworn certification of its City
Engineer to the effect that:
(a) Twenty-one lots (Nos. 17, 177, 179, 181-A, 181-B,
182 to 197) are part and parcel of the Zamboanga
Trade School;
(b) Three lots (Nos. 169, 175 and 176) are part and
parcel of the Zamboanga Normal College;
(c) Lot No. 127-D is the Pasonanca Elementary School;
(d) Lot No. 4147 is the Bolong Elementary School;
(e) Lot No. 159-B is part and parcel of the Baliwasan
Elementary School.
Appellant City of Zamboanga, therefore, prays that the main
decision be partly reconsidered and that all title to, and
ownership of, the 26 lots be declared to have been validly
vested in said City free of charge by Republic Act No. 3039.
The motion for reconsideration is vigorously opposed by
plaintiff-appellee Province of Zamboanga del Norte, which
contends that the evidence sought to be filed by the
appellant City is not newly discovered evidence and is,
therefore, inadmissible at this stage of the proceedings.
Alternatively, the appellee Province of Zamboanga contends
that the 26 lots are vacant, or that the buildings existing
thereon were constructed in bad faith; and that the said
Province has additional evidence to show that most of these
properties are not actually devoted to public use or
governmental purposes.
1awphil.nt
Considering that both contending parties are actually
subdivisions of one entity, the Republic of the Philippines, so
that public interest is involved and demands that the issues
presented be determined speedily without regard to
technicalities, the Court resolved that, in the interest of
justice and equity, its main decision and that of the court
below be reconsidered and set aside, in so far as they affect
the twenty-six lots heretofore enumerated, and the monetary
indemnities awarded. Instead, the records are ordered
remanded to the court of origin for a new trial, wherein the
parties shall be given opportunity to adduce and submit any
evidence in their possession to show whether or not the 26
lots aforesaid were or were not actually devoted to public
use or governmental purposes prior to the enactment of
Republic Act No. 3039. Thereafter, the Court of First
Instance shall decide the issues anew, taking into account
the evidence submitted by the parties and the principles of
law laid down by this Supreme Court in its main decision of
the present case, dated 28 March 1968.
So ordered. No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.
Footnotes
1
See 22 SCRA 1334.
"This could not be considered as forming part of the
appurtenant grounds of the Burleigh school sites since
the records here and in the Bureau of Lands show that
this lot is set apart from the other Burleigh lots."
2
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
