Republic vs CA | G.R. No. 103882,
G.R. No. 103882, November 25, 1998
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, respondents.
CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor., PASAY CITY and REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Doctrine: Statutory Construction; That Congress did not include submerged areas could only signify the exclusion of submerged areas from the term “foreshore lands.”—The duty of the court is to interpret the enabling Act, RA 1899. In so doing, we cannot broaden its meaning, much less widen the coverage thereof. If the intention of Congress were to include submerged areas, it should have provided expressly. That Congress did not so provide could only signify the exclusion of submerged areas from the term “foreshore lands.”
The plain meaning of a provision not contradicted by any other provision in the same statute cannot be regarded as absurd—an absurdity means anything which is irrational, unnatural or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of men of ordinary intelligence and discretion. Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199, G.R. No. 103882, G.R. No. 105276 November 25, 1998
Facts:
On June 22, 1957, the Philippine Government approve the Republic Act No. 1899 (“RA 1899”) which authorizes the reclamation of foreshore lands by chartered cities and municipalities. As Section 1 of said law, states:
“SECTION 1. Authority is hereby granted to all municipalities and chartered cities to undertake and carry out at their own expense the reclamation by dredging, filling, or other means, of any foreshore lands bordering them, and to establish, provide, construct, maintain and repair proper and adequate docking and harbor facilities as such municipalities and chartered cities may determine in consultation with the Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.”
On May 6, 1958, invoking the aforecited provision of RA 1899, the Pasay City Council passed Ordinance No. 121, for the reclamation of Three Hundred (300) hectares of foreshore lands in Pasay City, empowering the City Mayor to award and enter into reclamation contracts, and prescribing terms and conditions therefor – which authorized the Republic Real Estate Corporation (“RREC”) to reclaim foreshore lands of Pasay City under certain terms and conditions.
On March 5, 1962, the Republic of the Philippines filed an Amended Complaint questioning subject Agreement between Pasay City and RREC (Exhibit “P”) on the grounds that the subject-matter of such Agreement is outside the commerce of man, that its terms and conditions are violative of RA 1899, and that the said Agreement was executed without any public bidding.
On March 24, 1972, the trial court of origin came out with a Decision denying the motion to dismiss filed on January 10, 1968, by the Republic Real Estate Corporation and also dismissing the plaintiff’s complain. However, The Republic was dissatisfied with the judgment. Hence on January 11, 1973, before the appeal could be resolved, Presidential Decree No. 3-A issued, amending Presidential Decree No. 3.
On November 20, 1973, the Republic and the Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (“CDCP”) signed a Contract for the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road Project (Phases I and II) which contract included the reclamation and development of areas covered by the Agreement between Pasay City and RREC. Then, there was issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 which transferred to the Public Estate Authority (“PEA”) the rights and obligations of the Republic of the Philippines under the contract between the Republic and CDCP.
Attempts to settle amicably the dispute between representatives of the Republic, on the one hand, and those of Pasay City and RREC, on the other, did not work out. The parties involved failed to hammer out a compromise. Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199, G.R. No. 103882, G.R. No. 105276 November 25, 1998. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Pasay City and RREC, and the decision was affirmed by the CA with modifications.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the Ordinance passed by the Pasay City Council is valid. (2) Whether or not the term “foreshore land” includes the submerged area.
Ruling:
(1) The court ruled that Ordinance No. 121 passed by the Pasay City Council have been found to be outside the intendment and scope of RA 1899, and therefore ultra vires and null and void. (2) It is erroneous and unsustainable to uphold the opinion of the respondent court that the term “foreshore land” includes the submerged areas. It is stated that “foreshore lands” within the contemplation of RA 1899 has a broader meaning than the cited definition of the term in the Words and Phrases and the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and the plans and specifications of the reclamation involved were approved by the authorities concerned.
Read full text
G.R. No. 103882 – REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. (chanrobles.com)