NATIONAL WATERWORKS SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HOBART DATOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

This case is sequel to   G.R.
No. L-15525^[1]
wherein this Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon declaring the municipa­lity
of Lucban,
Quezon the owner
of the “Apolinario de la Cruz Waterworks
System.”  The dispositive
of the decision in that case decreed:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring plaintiff to
be the owner of the Lucban Waterworks System known as the ‘Apolinario
de la Cruz Waterworks System’, subject, however, to the jurisdiction, control
and supervision of defendant Authority, and ordering the defendant to account
to plaintiff for the revenue so far received by it from the operation of the
said waterworks system.”

The decision has become final and executory.

On February 2, 1962, Hobart Dator, in
his capa­city as Municipal Mayor of Lucban, issued a
Memorandum directing the Municipal Treasurer of that municipality to designate some of the clerks in his office,
as tem­porary waterworks collectors, to receive the water rentals paid by the
users of water; and a Proclamation enjoining the consuming public to pay their
water fees to the office of the Municipal Treasurer.  Complying therewith, the treasurer proceeded
to collect water fees, and had actually made collections from a number of
consumers in the municipality.

On February 19, 1962,
the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), filed with the same
Court of First Instance of Quezon, a petition to declare the mayor in
contempt, alleging that the acts of the
latter in ordering for the collection of fees are in defiance of the decision of this Court in G. R. No. L-15525.  Af­ter submission by the parties of their
responsive plead­ings on the matter, the lower court, on June 1, 1962,
dismissed the petition, holding and concluding “that the collection of
water fees and the appointment of per­sonnel of the system are acts relating to
internal management are not included in the regulatory and su­pervisory powers
embraced in the term ‘jurisdiction, supervision and control’ to be exercised by
the petitioner (NAWASA) over the
waterworks system pertaining to municipalities
under Republic Act 1383.”  It is
from this order that the NAWASA has taken the instant appeal.

The appellant maintains
that the mayor’s order to collect water bills in the name of the municipality constitutes
contempt of court as it is an
encroachment upon the NAWASA’s supervisory power over the municipal­ity’s
waterworks system as declared in G. R. No. L­15525.

The contention is untenable. 
The authority of a municipality to fix and collect rents for water
supplied by its waterworks system is expressly granted by law.^[2]

Section 2317 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

“Municipal Waterworks. – A municipal council
shall have authority to acquire, construct, and maintain waterworks for the
purpose of sup­plying the inhabitants of the muni­cipality with water; to
regulate the supply and use of water there­from; and to
fix and collect rents for water thus supplied.”  (Emphasis Ours.)

And section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264,
also provides that:  “any provision
of law to the contrary notwith­standing, x x x municipalities x x x shall have authority x x x to collect fees and charges for services rendered by the city, municipality or munici­pal
district.”

Even without these express provisions, however, the authority of
the municipality to fix and collect fees from its waterworks would be justified
from its inherent power to administer what it owns privately.  It is now settled that although the NAWASA
may regulate and supervise the water plants owned and operated by cities and
municipalities, the ownership thereof is vested in the municipality and in the
operation thereof the municipality acts in its proprietary capacity.^[3]
Like any private owner, the municipality enjoys tin attributes of ownership
under the New Civil Code.^[4]
One such attribute is the right
to use or enjoy the property.^[5]
The municipality, here concerned, has chosen
to use its waterworks system for revenue pur­poses.  Its undertaking to supply water at a cost to
its inhabitants, is in itself a business venture, and the fees collected therefrom, would be the only income that said municipality
may derive from such business.  If a
governmental entity, like the NAWASA, were allowed to collect the fees that the
consuming public pay for the water supplied to them by the municipality, the
latter, as owner, would be deprived of the full enjoyment of its property.  As previously stated,^[6]
ownership is nothing without the inherent rights of possession, control and
enjoyment.

In the case of Municipality
of Compostela
vs. NAWASA, supra, this Court, rejecting the NAWASA’s
proposition to administer the municipal waterworks therein involved,
pronounced:

“x x x the National Government can not appropriate
patrimonial prop­erty of municipal corporations without just compensation and
due process of law.  As a consequence,
neither may the National Government assume the power of administration of patri­monial
property of municipal corpora­tions, if such action is based upon the
aforementioned appropriation of said property by the State.  In fact, it may not, by operation of law,
assume such administration, without appropriating the title to the property, if the same or the income derived from its operation will be co-mingled with other property, either of
the National Government or of other municipal corporations, in such  a way to permit the use  of the property or income belonging to one of
such corporations for the benefit of another municipal  corporation or of the  State itself.” (37 Am. Jur. p. 700; 62 C. J. S. p. 348; 38 Am. Jur.
pp. 97-98; 103 A.L.R. p. 579 (Em­phasis supplied).  (See also San Juan
vs. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-22047, August 31, 1967) where

Upon the foregoing, the order appealed from must be as it
is hereby, affirmed, and on equitable considerations no costs is taxed.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Fernando JJ., concur.

Bengzon, J., on official leave of absence.

^[1]
The Municipality of Lucban vs. NAWASA, decided on October
11, 1961.

^[2]
See the Municipality of Compostela, Cebu, vs. NAWASA, G. R.
No. L-21763, December 17, 1966.

^[3]
City of Baguio
vs. NAWASA, 57 Off. Gaz.
1584; City of Cebu
vs. NAWASA, G. R. No. L-12892, April 20, 1960; Municipality
of Naguilian
vs. NAWASA, G. R. No. L-18540, November 29, 1963.

^[4]
Art. 424, 2nd par.  In the words of the
Romans, the attributes of ownership are jus utendi, fruendi, abutendi, disponendi and vindicandi. (3
Sanchez Ro­man 84, ????; 2 Casten 76,
both cited in the Civil Code of the Philippines,
Annotated, by Tolentino, p. 410.

^[5]
Art. 428, Ibid.

^[6]
See Municipality of La
Carlota vs. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-20232, September 30, 1964.