Pascual vs. Sec.

Public Works and Communications

G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960
Ponente: CONCEPCION, J.:

Facts: In 1953, Republic Act No. 920 was passed. This law appropriated P85,000.00 “for the
construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement Pasig feeder road terminals”.
Wenceslao Pascual, then governor of Rizal, assailed the validity of the law. He claimed that the
appropriation was actually going to be used for private use for the terminals sought to be improved
were part of the Antonio Subdivision. The said Subdivision is owned by Senator Jose Zulueta who
was a member of the same Senate that passed and approved the same RA. Pascual claimed that
Zulueta misrepresented in Congress the fact that he owns those terminals and that his property
would be unlawfully enriched at the expense of the taxpayers if the said RA would be upheld. Pascual
then prayed that the Secretary of Public Works and Communications be restrained from releasing
funds for such purpose. Zulueta, on the other hand, perhaps as an afterthought, donated the said
property to the City of Pasig.

Issue: Whether the appropriation is valid?

Ruling: No. The court held that right of the legislature to appropriate public funds is correlative with
its right to tax and as such the power of taxation may only be exercised for public purposes. In that
case, the appropriation of public funds for the construction of feeder roads on land owned by a private
person is invalid for being made for other than a public purpose. Here, Inasmuch as the land on
which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the
result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and hence, was null and void. 4 The
donation to the Government, over five (5) months after the approval and effectivity of said Act, made,
according to the petition, for the purpose of giving a "semblance of legality", or legalizing, the
appropriation in question, did not cure its aforementioned basic defect. Consequently, a judicial
nullification of said donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of said
appropriation. Hence, the appropriation is invalid.