GR 37289; (April, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37289. April 12, 1989.
THE CITY OF NAGA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and APOLONIO G. MALENIZA, respondents.
FACTS
In November 1959, the outgoing Provincial Board of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 1103, authorizing Governor Juan Trivino to execute deeds of sale for two provincial properties—a high school complex and an agricultural lot—to the City of Naga for a nominal consideration of one peso each. Governor Trivino executed the deeds on November 23, 1959, and the City took possession, making improvements worth P14,901.14. The newly elected Governor, Apolonio G. Maleniza, filed a complaint on December 9, 1959, seeking annulment of the sales, damages, and injunction, alleging the conveyances were void as the properties were for public use and the sales lacked required approvals.
The new Provincial Board revoked Resolution No. 1103 in January 1960. The trial court declared the sales null and void, ordered the City to vacate and pay monthly rentals as damages, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the judgment by granting indemnity to the City for its improvements on the properties.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the conveyances and in awarding damages against the City of Naga.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the nullity of the conveyances and the modified award. The legal foundation for annulment is Section 2068 of the Revised Administrative Code, which mandates that any deed conveying provincial real property must be executed by the Provincial Governor upon board resolution and with the approval of the President of the Philippines. The deeds executed by Governor Trivino lacked this indispensable Presidential approval, rendering them void ab initio. This defect was not cured subsequently, as approval was never obtained.
Regarding damages, the Court found the appellate court’s modification equitable. While the City was liable for rentals for its use of the property, it was entitled to indemnity for the useful improvements it made in good faith. The Court approved the set-off of this indemnity against the accrued rentals, ensuring fairness. The Court refused to consider new factual issues raised in a supplemental petition, such as the respondent’s change in office and alleged property transfer to the national government, emphasizing that it is not a trier of facts and these matters were not part of the records from the lower courts. Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.