Remulla vs. Maliksi GR 171633

REMULLA VS.
MALIKSI GR 171633
DOCTRINE:
Jurisprudence dictates that a taxpayer may be allowed to sue where there is a claim that public
funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose,
or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law
or ordinance. ART. 7 paragraph 3 Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall
be valid only when they are not contrary to laws or the Constitution.
FACTS:
Marietta de Villa in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the estate of her late husband
Guillermo, ceded, through a deed of donation of their property in favor of the Province of
Cavite, on which now stands various government offices and facilities. Thereafter, the Province
of Cavite filed an expropriation case seeking to expropriate the subject property which the
former intends to develop as the Provincial Capitol Site. De Villa opposed the said expropriation
proceedings claiming that there are still areas within the donated portion which the Province of
Cavite failed to develop and she also alleged that the fair market value of subject property
should be P45.00 per s/m. While said expropriation case was still pending, she sold a portion of
the subject property to Goldenrod. Respondent Cavite Governor Erineo Maliksi issued an EO
authorizing the creation of a committee which recommend the terms and conditions for the
proper settlement expropriation case. The foregoing recommendations were adopted in a
Compromise Agreement entered into by and between Maliksi and Trece Martires Mayor and
the owners of Goldenrod. Said compromise was approved by the RTC in a decision. In the CA.
Remulla, in his personal capacity as taxpayer and Vice-Governor filed a petition for annulment
of judgement of RTC that said compromise is grossly disadvantageous to the government and
that extrinsic fraud tainted the expropriation proceedings considering that there was collusion
between the parties.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not Remulla’s petition for annulment of judgement be denied
RULING:
No. Records bear out that Remulla filed his petition for annulment of judgment in two
capacities: first, in his personal capacity as a taxpayer; and, second, in his official capacity as
then presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite. With respect
to the first, jurisprudence dictates that a taxpayer may be allowed to sue where there is a claim
that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper
purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional law or ordinance. In this case, public funds of the Province of Cavite stand to
be expended to enforce the compromise judgment. As such, Remulla – being a resident-
taxpayer of the Province of Cavite – has the legal standing to file the petition for annulment of
judgment and, therefore, the same should not have been dismissed on said ground. Notably,
the fact that there lies no proof that public funds have already been disbursed should not
preclude Remulla from assailing the validity of the compromise judgment. Lest it be
misunderstood, the concept of legal standing is ultimately a procedural technicality which may
be relaxed by the Court if the circumstances so warrant. As observed in Mamba v. Lara, the
Court did not hesitate to give standing to taxpayers in cases where serious legal issues were
raised or where public expenditures of millions of pesos were involved. Likewise, it has also
been ruled that a taxpayer need not be a party to the contract in order to challenge its validity,
or to seek the annulment of the same on the ground of extrinsic fraud. Indeed, for as long as
taxes are involved, the people have a right to question contracts entered into by the
government, as in this case. Anent the second, Remulla equally lodged the petition for
annulment of judgment in his official capacity as then Vice-Governor and Presiding Officer of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite. As such, he represents the interests of
the province itself which is, undoubtedly, a real party in interest since it stands to be either
benefited or injured by the execution of the compromise judgment.

Remulla vs. Maliksi GR 171633

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remulla vs. Maliksi GR 171633

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remulla vs. Maliksi GR 171633

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMULLA VS.

You might also like