Digest Author: Paolo Sison Go

Joya vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government Petition: Special Civil Action for prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the Presidential Commission on Good Government to proceed with an auction sale. Petitioner: Dean Jose Joya and 34 other petitioners Respondent: PCGG Ponente: Justice Bellosillo Date: August 24, 1993 Facts: On August 9, 1990, Mateo Caparas then chairman of the PCGG, wrote then President Corazon Aquino, requesting her for authority to sign the proposed consignment agreement between the Republic of the Philippines through PGCC and Christies of New York concerning the seized old masters paintings and antique silverware from Malacaang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila alleged to be part of the late President Marcos ill-gotten wealth. On August 15, 1990 President Aquino, through former Executive Secretery Catalino Macaraig, Jr., authorized Chairman Caparas to sign the consignment agreement. Chairman Caparas signed the consignment agreement on the next day. On October 26, 1990, the Commission on Audit through chairman Domingo submitted audit findings and observations of the COA on the consignment agreement which are: A.) The authority of former PCGG Chairman Caparas to enter into the Consignment Agreement was of doubtful legality; B.) The contract was highly disadvantageous to the government; C.) PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the U.S.; and, D.) The assets subject of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance, hence, their disposal was prohibited by law. On November 15, 1990, PCGG through its new Chairman David Castro, defended the consignment agreement and repudiated the allegations of the COA. Also, the Director of National Museum said the items were not protected cultural properties and did not specifically qualify as part of the Filipino cultural heritage. Petitioners filed for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order seek to enjoin the Presidential Commission on Good Government from proceeding with the auction sale scheduled on January 11, 1991 by Christies of New York of the Old Masters paintings and 18th and 19th century silverware seized from Malacaang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila and placed in the custody of the Central Bank. Petition was filed on January 7, 1991. January 9, 1991 the Courts denied the preliminary injunction to restrain the scheduled sake if artworks on the ground that petitioners had not presented a clear legal right to a restraining order and that proper parties had not been impleaded(sued or brought action against). Sales till proceeded as scheduled and the $13,302,604.86 were turned over to the Bureau of Treasury. On Feb 5, 1991, additional petitioners were added and the former and current executive secretary were impleaded as additional respondents. Pertinent laws/provisions: Sec. 2, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court : Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a)

Digest Author: Paolo Sison Go

Section 2 of R.A. 4846, as amended by P.D. 374:

"Sec. 2. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to preserve and protect the important cultural properties and National Cultural Treasures of the nation and to safeguard their intrinsic value." Issues: 1. WON petitioners have legal standing to file the instant petition; 2. WON the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the nation" which is under the protection of the state pursuant to the 1987 Constitution and/or "cultural properties" contemplated under R.A. 4846, otherwise known as "The Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act;" 3. Mootness of the case Ruling: 1. No, petitioners did not prove that they were the legal owners or that the items were publicly owned. 2. No, objects did not qualify under R.A. 4846 and the court took note of certification issued by the Director of the National Museum that said that the items did not specifically qualify as part of the Filipino cultural heritage. 3. The selling of the items has rendered the case moot and academic. Court ruling: For lack of merit , the petition for prohibition and mandamus is dismissed. Ratio Decidendi: 1. A.)The petitioners themselves said that the paintings were donations given by private persons from different parts of the world to the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation a non-profit and non-stock corporation formerly headed by Imelda Marcos. On this basis, the paintings were legally owned by the foundation and its members. The public was only given the opportunity to view them. B.) The antique silverware on the other hand, were gifts from friends and dignitaries from foreign countries for the silver wedding anniversary of Marcos. The confiscation of these items when the Marcos regime was toppled does not mean that they have passed ownership to the government without complying with constitutional and statutory requirements of due process and just compensation. 2. "Important cultural properties" are cultural properties which have been singled out from among the innumerable cultural properties as having exceptional historical cultural significance to the Philippines but are not sufficiently outstanding to merit the classification of national cultural treasures. On the other hand, a "national cultural treasures" is a unique object found locally, possessing outstanding historical, cultural, artistic and/or scientific value which is highly significant and important to this country and nation. Also, the court takes note and respects the certification issued by the Director of the National Museum. Findings of administrative officials and agencies who have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence and are controlling on the reviewing authorities because of their acknowledged expertise in the fields of specialization to which they are assigned. 3. The issues raised on the petition have become moot since the items have already been sold however, the court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirements of an actual case or legal standing when paramount public interest is involved. Opinions: None

Digest Author: Paolo Sison Go

Principles: Proper Party In this case the Proper Party, The Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation and Marcos family are the only ones who could have issued a case being the true owners.