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
Following the 1959 elections, 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. The deeds were executed on November 23, 1959. Governor-elect Apolonio G. Maleniza, in his capacity as a taxpayer and incoming governor, filed a complaint on December 9, 1959, seeking the annulment of the conveyances. He argued the properties, being devoted to public use, were outside the commerce of man and the transfers were effectively donations lacking proper acceptance. Upon assuming office, the new Provincial Board revoked the authorizing resolution.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether the deeds of sale executed by the outgoing provincial government in favor of the City of Naga were valid and enforceable.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which had upheld the trial court’s annulment of the sales. The legal logic centered on a mandatory statutory requirement for the validity of such provincial conveyances. Section 2068 of the Revised Administrative Code explicitly required that deeds conveying provincial real property must be executed by the Provincial Governor upon a board resolution and, crucially, with the approval of the President of the Philippines. The Court found this presidential approval was entirely absent in the transactions. Consequently, the conveyances were void from the beginning for non-compliance with this indispensable condition. The Court upheld the award of rentals to the province for the city’s use of the properties but also affirmed the appellate court’s modification granting the City of Naga indemnity for the value of its useful improvements, which could be set off against the rental dues. The Court refused to consider new factual matters raised in a supplemental petition, reiterating that it is not a trier of facts. The conveyances were declared null and void ab initio.