[ G.R. No. 18715. January 08, 1923 ] 44 Phil. 292
[ G.R. No. 18715. January 08, 1923 ]
LA SAGRADA ORDEN DE PREDICADORES DE LA PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE FILIPINAS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
VILLAMOR, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila whereby the defendant was absolved from the complaint and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant the sum of P1,404.44, the amount of defendant’s counterclaim, with interest and costs.
It appears that upon the construction of the Carriedo water supply for the City of Manila, the plaintiff, “Sagrada Orden de Predicadores,” donated to the municipality of Manila certain lands of its ownership situated in San Juan del Monte that were required for bringing the water to the city. In return for this act of liberality and generosity of the Dominican Fathers of the Province of the Holy Rosary, that is, the plaintiff corporation, the old city council of Manila, by a resolution dated October 20, 1886, decided to furnish, free of charge, the necessary water from the Carriedo waterworks for the use of the convent of Sto. Domingo, of this city. From the year 1886 the convent of Sto. Domingo has been enjoying the free use of the Carriedo waters until the first of July, 1920, when the defendant, in its capacity as administrator and trustee of the present water supply system in the City of Manila, required the plaintiff to pay for the water consumed during the months of July to September, 1920. The plaintiff paid the amount of P52.24 under protest, and this action followed.
Relying on the aforesaid resolution Exhibit B, of the old city council of Manila, the plaintiff prays that the defendant be ordered to fulfill its obligation to furnish free water consumption which plaintiff has been enjoying long since, to refrain from collecting any charges for the water consumed in its convent and to refund the amounts paid by the plaintiff. The defendant in its answer sets up several special defenses, which we shall consider later on, and, as a counterclaim, asks that plaintiff be sentenced to pay the sum of P1,404.44, with interest thereon, for water consumed from September 1, 1916, up to the third quarter of 1920.
From the judgment aforementioned of the lower court, an appeal was duly and properly taken, and after the motion for new trial was overruled the case was brought to this court by bill of exceptions.
The errors assigned by the appellant in its brief are: (a) The finding that the right of the convent of Sto. Domingo to the free consumption of water has prescribed by reason of the fact that no time had been specified in the concession; (b) the finding that the obligation of the defendant to grant the convent of Sto. Domingo the gratuitous use of water has been extinguished by the Jones Law; (c) the finding that the right of the plaintiff entity has been extinguished by the fact that the water supplied to the convent of Sto. Domingo comes from the new water system; and (d) the fact of sentencing the plaintiff entity to pay the sum claimed in the counterclaim.
The resolution of the old city council of Manila of October 20, 1886, from which the plaintiff derives its right, is contained in Exhibit B, which reads as follows:
“Finally, the council having been informed by several councilors that it is not possible to carry out what was resolved at the meeting of the 23d of July last, regarding the cost incident to the installation of the Carriedo waterworks in the buildings belonging to the convent of Sto. Domingo, which are yet without this service, for the reason that the said cost had already been defrayed by them, and the municipality desiring, however, to render the said convent a tribute of gratitude and a just return for the kind attention and generous act of liberality that it has shown the municipality by granting it gratuitously some lands belonging to it situated in San Juan del Monte that were necessary for the waterworks, it was resolved to give free of charge all the water of the Carriedo waterworks that may be consumed in the aforesaid convent of Sto. Domingo, of this city.”
Admitting the validity of the gratuitous concession of water made by the old government of the City of Manila to the plaintiff entity, the court below, however, holds that as no time was fixed for the free use of water in the convent of Sto. Domingo, the successors of the old government of the City of Manila and the defendant herein, the Metropolitan Water District, are not under obligation to respect said concession. Following is the line of reasoning of his Honor, the trial judge:
“It will be noted that in the aforesaid resolution nothing is said as to the time or duration of said concession or donation, it was simply resolved to grant gratuitously the water of the Carriedo waterworks that might be used in the convent of Sto. Domingo, and since it was not resolved nor stated that the concession of the said use of water was to be for the whole time of the existence of the said convent of Sto. Domingo, it cannot be reasonably said that the aforementioned donation was perpetual or permanent, from which it follows logically that the successors of the old government of the City of Manila and the herein defendant, the Metropolitan Water District, are not under obligation to respect the aforesaid donation, nor to continue furnishing gratuitously the water that may be needed and consumed in the convent of Sto. Domingo.”
Whether or not the old city council of Manila had any authority to make the remuneratory concession here in question is not discussed in the decision of the court below. And as a matter of fact the Attorney-General confines himself in his brief to maintaining the proposition that the judgment appealed from is correct in all respects. So that defendant’s counsel, who has not appealed from the judgment of the court below, cannot now raise this question in this instance, under Rule 20 of the Rules of this court.
However, in the discussion of this case among the members of this court, the question was raised as to the lack of authority on the part of the old city council of Manila to make the plaintiff the concession upon which the complaint is based.
In studying the proceedings of the city council of Manila in connection with the establishment of the water supply system, we need not look to any law regarding the organization and powers of the city council, but must determine rather the capacity of a trustee, for the following reasons:
(a) The funds, as well as the charitable idea of constructing a water supply system to furnish water to the inhabitants of Manila, came from a legacy provided in clause 15 of the testament of General Francisco Carriedo y Peredo who had appointed Marquis de Montecastro y Llanahermosa as testamentary executor.
(b) As appears in “Obra Pia” No. 43 inserted in the book entitled “Obras Pias Sus Fundadores” kept in the division of archives of Manila, on March 28, 1748, the aforesaid Marquis de Montecastro, as executor of General De Carriedo, assigned to the board of “Obra Pia” known as “Mesa de Sta. Misericordia” the sum of $8,000 Spanish dollars, stating that he was doing it in compliance with clause 15 of the testament executed by the said General shortly before his death, which amount was to be increased to 36,000 dollars, the total amount adjudicated to it, in order that with the part of such amount invested in business, the testamentary provision concerning this enterprise might be carried into effect, requesting the purveyors and members of the “Mesa” to receive it and keep it in their treasury. This request met with their approval with the only condition that 5 per cent of the profit that might be obtained should inure to the treasury.
(c) The powers of the board known as “Mesa de la Sta. Misericordia” with respect to the said funds passed to the city council of Manila, which assumed the administration thereof not as administrator of municipal funds but as trustee of the Carriedo charitable funds; hence it was then entitled in its various proceedings “Fideicomisaria de las Obras de Carriedo” (Trustee of the Carriedo Works).
(d) In administering the funds as well as in carrying into effect the object of the testator to furnish water to the inhabitants of Manila, the council was acting in compliance with the last will of the testator, Carriedo, in the place and stead of the testamentary executor, Marquis de Montecastro y Llanahermosa, and not precisely by virtue of any ordinance or municipal law.
According to the ancient expounders of the Spanish law, in fideicommissary substitutions, that person is regarded as the fiduciary who is charged with the execution of the will of the testator, and fideicommissary the person to whom the inheritance is to be delivered as beneficiary. In this case the inhabitants of Manila are the fideicommissary and the council the fiduciary. The city council of Manila as fiduciary charged with the carrying out and performance of the testamentary trust was authorized to use the necessary means to accomplish the object contemplated by the testator.
In its capacity as fiduciary of the Carriedo charitable fund, the old city council of Manila had under the law all the necessary powers to accomplish the bringing of the waters to the city, with which it was charged. It had the power to appoint the necessary personnel to carry the project into effect and to buy not only the materials necessary for such a great enterprise but also to buy or acquire by condemnation proceedings such lands as were needed for the placing of the Carriedo water pipes. And it so appears in the resolution book of the city council from which Exhibit B was taken. It is not necessary to demonstrate that, under the sound principles of law, the authority to buy carries with it that to exchange, and this is what happened in the instant case.
In the testament of Carriedo we find, among others, the following provisions:
“Also, That if the desired object of conducting the water to this city be accomplished, three or four public fountains must be constructed within the same, and without, such number as may be deemed convenient, and at the expense of said funds water conduits must be laid to conduct the water to the convents of San Francisco, San Juan de Dios, and Sta. Clara.
“Also. That if any other convent, religious community or private house desires to enjoy this benefit, the same must be granted with the condition that it must contribute to the expenses of conducting the water in a proportionate amount then to be determined, and of the amount thus paid a prudential part must be used as an aid to the undertaking, the residents and traders of the Noble City being at liberty to increase it so that with its interest and profit the losses of the enterprise might be compensated, and the reasonable salaries of the persons in charge of the maintenance, repair, and preservation of said work paid.”
As can be seen, the testator making the legacy provided that if any convent desired to enjoy the benefit granted the convents of San Francisco, San Juan de Dios, and Sta. Clara to have the water conduits laid at the expense of the funds of the enterprise, it should be granted with the condition that said convent shall contribute to the expenses of laying the conduits. In the present case, as appears in the aforesaid resolution of the city council, the community of Sto. Domingo had defrayed the expenses of installing the waterworks in its convent, which expenses the city council desired to defray in return for the donation that said convent had made of its lands in San Juan del Monte in favor of the city council for the construction of the Carriedo waterworks, and so the city council resolved to grant said community the free use of the water in the convent of Sto. Domingo.
If the city council of Manila was authorized to adopt the resolution under discussion, it seems to us unquestionable that that resolution has produced its legal effects. In the old ordinances prescribing rules for the government of the City of Manila and the proceedings of the chapters approved by Royal Cedula on September 12, 1686, the following, among other things, is provided:
“Also. It is ordered and decreed that no resolution voted at one meeting shall be revoked at another; that should this be necessary in any particular case and for just and urgent reasons, it so be done always as not to impair any right of a third person arising from contract or quasi-contract, and that all the members of the Chapter be present at the meeting held for that purpose * * * that whatever resolution might be adopted be carried into effect unless appeal is taken therefrom to any superior court. * * *” (Pages 65-69, vol. 3, Legislacion Ultramarina by Joaquin Rodriguez San Pedro.)
The said resolution has been in force ever since it was adopted and having created a definite state of things, it cannot now be revoked without injuring the right of the party plaintiff.
In the case of Vasquez Vilas vs. City of Manila (42 Phil., 953), the Supreme Court of the United States held that:
“The City of Manila holds the Carriedo fund as a trustee and such fund is liable for obligations incurred in the administration of the Carriedo waterworks. (Vidal vs. Philadelphia, 2 How., 127; 11 L. ed., 205; Girard vs. Philadelphia, 7 Wall., 1; 19 L. ed., 53; United States vs. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 17 Wall., 322; 21 L. ed., 597; Tippecanoe County vs. Lucas, 93 U. S., 108, 115; 23 L. ed., 822, 824; Hunter vs. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S., 161, 179; 52 L. ed., 151, 159; 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 40; Philadelphia vs. Fox, 64 Pa., 182; People ex rel., Le Roy vs. Hurlbut, 24 Mich., 44; 9 Am. Rep., 108; McDonough vs. Murdoch, 15 How., 367; 14 L. ed., 732; New vs. Nicoll, 73 N. Y., 127; 29 Am. Rep., 111; Noyes vs. Blakeman, 6 N. Y., 580; Van Slyke vs. Bush, 123 N. Y., 47;25 N. E., 196.)”
Appellee urges that the cession of the water was made in return for another cession, that of the strip of land made by appellant, and as the latter has revoked its donation, it cannot now claim fulfillment of that which, for reciprocity, was accorded it by the predecessors of the defendant appellee.
It is true, as evidenced by the record, that when the entire San Juan del Monte Estate was registered under Act No. 496 in the name of the appellant, and also when it transferred the land to Mr. Orense and to the present owner, J. K. Pickering & Co., the strip of land donated to the old city council of Manila was included in the registration; however, the same records show that the plaintiff, upon noticing such inclusion, requested the present owner, J. K. Pickering & Co., to exclude the said strip of land from its title, reducing thereby the price, to which J. K. Pickering & Co. consented, as is shown by Exhibits D and E. The Attorney-General himself, representing the defendant, admits in his motion, Exhibit C, filed with the court in the record G. L. R. O. 975, that the Metropolitan Water District and J. K. Pickering & Co. had come to an agreement by which the present owner of the land binds itself and undertakes to transfer unto the said Metropolitan Water District, as the administrator of the Carriedo waterworks, unconditionally and without any limitation, the title and ownership of the whole strip of land within the limits of the Province of Rizal that had been given in 1886 by the Dominican Fathers for laying the water pipes.
On the other hand, it does not appear that the defendant, nor the City of Manila, has ever been disturbed by the appellant or by the present owner, in their use and possession of the land occupied by the water pipes in San Juan del Monte.
The fact that the water supply of the City of Manila almost the whole year around comes from the Montalban reservoir does not affect the rights and obligations growing out of the resolution above quoted of the old city council of Manila, since it is an indisputable fact that the defendant, the Metropolitan Water District, remains in the possession of the same lands donated by the appellant, which was the basis for the grant of the free use of water to the convent of Sto. Domingo by the former city government of Manila.
In its decision, the lower court says that by virtue of section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, known as the Jones Law, the convent of the Dominican Fathers of the City of Manila cannot continue in the free enjoyment of the use of the water supplied by the City of Manila, for the reason that the said section strictly prohibits that any public property or fund be used or destined, without due compensation, for the use, benefit or maintenance of any church, or religious institution or denomination. It should be observed, in the first place, that the free supply of water granted by the old city council of Manila to the convent of Sto. Domingo was made, not on account of any religious consideration, but in return for an act of liberality of the Dominican Fathers in donating part of their lands to the City of Manila for the laying of the water pipes of the Carriedo waterworks. Secondly, the donation was remuneratory; in other words, the free consumption of water is compensated by the value of more than ten thousand square meters of land which the party plaintiff had donated. Supposing that the old city council of Manila could validly purchase the necessary lands for bringing the water to the city, there is no logical reason why the said city government could not equally, instead of paying the price of the land, furnish free of charge the water that might be used by the convent of Sto. Domingo, the donor. Considering the case at bar in the most favorable light for both parties, it is evident that these donations, made reciprocally by the plaintiff corporation and the old city council of Manila, the predecessor of the defendant, constitute in the final analysis an exchange or barter whereby one gives its lands and the other the supply of water. It cannot be held, therefore, that the free supply of water to the convent of Sto. Domingo is made without compensation; wherefore, we are of the opinion that the court below erred in applying section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, to the present case.
The question as to whether or not the obligation contracted by the former municipal council of the City of Manila was transmitted to the present municipal board of Manila upon the change of sovereignty, has already been decided in the affirmative by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Vasquez Vilas vs. City of Manila (42 Phil., 953). That high tribunal, after an exhaustive review of the precedents and authorities upon the point, among other enlightening doctrines contained in its wise decision, held that the present City of Manila, chartered by the Philippine Commission, with almost the same municipal attributes, territorial extension and population that it had as the municipality of Manila under the Spanish regime, is liable for the municipal obligations contracted before the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States by the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898.
Finally, Act No. 2832 of the Philippine Legislature, creating the Metropolitan Water District, in its section 8 empowers and directs the governing body created by that law to receive and take charge, in the name of the Metropolitan Water District, of all the assets and obligations pertaining to the waterworks and sewerage system of the City of Manila. Wherefore, it is our opinion, and so decide, that the Metropolitan Water District is in duty bound to respect the obligations contracted by its predecessor, the old city council of Manila, by supplying gratuitously water for the consumption in the convent of Sto. Domingo, which pertains to the plaintiff corporation.
By virtue whereof the judgment appealed from is reversed and the defendant is sentenced to supply gratuitously the water that may be consumed in the said convent of Sto. Domingo and to refund the amount of P52.24 paid by the appellant, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Avanceña, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.