PROVINCE OF BOHOL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This appeal by the National Waterworks & Sewerage Autho­rity
(NAWASA) from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bohol in civil case 1522 was certified to this Court by the
Court of Appeals on the ground that only one question of law is presented for
resolution, to wit:  whether the CFI
correctly denied the verbal manifestation made by the appellant (NAWASA) in
open court for the appointment of a commissioner to appraise the waterworks sys­tem of the appellee
(Province of Bohol).

On August 23, 1962 the plaintiff, the Province of Bohol, sued the NAWASA, alleging (1) that the plaintiff is
the owner of the Tag­bilaran Waterworks System,
situated on a parcel of land in barrio Dampas, Tagbilaran, Bohol, containing an
area of 1,228 sq. m. and described in original certificate of title 178; (2)
that on March 31, 1959, without paying any compensation, the NAWASA took from
the plaintiff the possession, custody and control of the said waterworks system
including its assets, and has since been operating the same and receiving fees
from its water consumers to the exclusion, and to the prejudice, of the
plaintiff; and (3) that despite repeated de­mands, the NAWASA has refused and
failed, and still refuses, to pay or reimburse to the plaintiff the reasonable
value of the said waterworks system
which is P190,163.27, or return the possession, custody and control
thereof.  And so the plaintiff prays,
alternative­ly, that the NAWASA be
ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P190,163.27 with legal interest from
March 31, 1959 until fully paid, or that it be ordered to return to the plaintiff
the possession, control and custody of the said waterworks system together with
all its assets, including the amount of P16,496.06 which the NAWASA
received from the plaintiff on the said date, and other amounts it has received
for operating the said waterworks system.

In its answer, the NAWASA
prays for the dismissal of the complaint; at the same time it counterclaimed
for recovery of P80,000 for necessary improvements and expenses, P50,000 for actual moral damages, and P20,000 for attorney’s fees.

On November
21, 1962 the
plaintiff filed its answer to the counterclaim.

On June 23,
1964 the parties
submitted the following stipula­tion of facts:

“1. That plaintiff is the owner of the Tagbila­ran Waterworks System;

“2.  That on March 11, 1959, plaintiff delivered to defendant, only for
the latter’s, administration, the said Tagbilaran
Waterworks System;

“3.  That, presently, plaintiff wants to recover
from defendant the administration over said Water­works System;

“4. That, on the other hand, defendant insists on
continuing with its administration over the Water­works System;

“5.  That the parties are trying to enter into an
amicable settlement for which reason this Honorable Court is requested to defer
the hearing of this case un­til July
17, 1964 at 11:00 a.m.,
on which date the par­ties will inform this Honorable Court whether or not they
have entered into such amicable settlement.”

When the case was called
for trial on July 17, 1964, the NAWASA made the following admissions:

“(a)  that the plaintiff is the owner of the parcel
of land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint;

“(b)  and
that the value of the pieces of proper­ty
described in paragraph III of the complaint is P190,163.27, as alleged in the
said complaint.”

The plaintiff then rested its case.  The trial was thereafter postponed several
times, all on motion of the defendant.

On July 16,
1965 the court
issued the following order:

“Make it of record that when this case was called today the
parties admit the following facts:

“‘That on January 15, 1965 this case was called for the
presentation of the evidence of the defendant, but defendant instead of pre­senting
evidence, made only a verbal manifes­tation through its counsel, Atty. Tiburcio M. Cue, that a commissioner be appointed to ass­ess
the property of the plaintiff in the possession of the defendant; but this
petition was de­nied by the Court.’

“That after this denial, defendant rested its case;

*        *           *

“With the foregoing facts, plaintiff and defen­dant submit
this case for decision.”

The judgment a quo
reads:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court renders judgment:

“(a)  Declaring the plaintiff owner of the parcel of
land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, with all its improvements or
assets described in paragraph 3 of the same complaint as follows:

“(b)  Ordering the defendant to deliver to plain­tiff
the possession of the said parcel of land and its improvements or assets
mentioned in the previous para­graph;

“(c)  Ordering the defendant to make, within the
period of thirty days from the date the present judgment has become final and executory, an accounting of all its incomes and expenses
resulting from the operation of the Tagbilaran Waterworks System.  This accounting shall cover the period from March
31, 1959, date of
the operation of the Tagbilaran Waterworks System by
defendant, to the date the latter has com­pletely delivered to plaintiff the
properties, subject matter of the present decision.  Be it understood that in this account
defendant shall include the sum of P16,496.06 which it had received from the plaintiff
on March 31, 1959,
as alleged in the complaint.”

As already stated, the
NAWASA appealed upon the following lone
question of law:  Did the lower court err
in denying NAWASA’s
verbal manifestation for the
appointment of a commissioner to ap­praise the waterworks system of the
plaintiff-appellee?

This lone issue may be
summarily disposed of by recogniz­ing the correct nature of the present appeal,
which is one from an interlocutory
order of the lower court.  It is all too
well-settled to require any citation
of authorities that an interlocutory order can­not be the subject of an appeal,
as it does not dispose of the case on the merits.  The word “interlocutory” refers to
“something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit
which de­cides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole
controversy.”^[1]

At all events, the verbal
motion made by the NAWASA in open court for the appointment of a commissioner
to appraise the waterworks system was, to our mind, made half-heartedly.  The counsel for NAWASA has not shown and did
not offer to show that there was need of reference of the matter to a
commissioner.  When the motion was denied
in open court, the NAWASA simply rested its case without requesting a
reconsideration of the denial or submitting any evidence.  THE NAWASA was afforded every opportunity to present its evidence, as can be gleaned from the
fact that there was a 26-month delay in the hearing caused by no less than 13
postponements, all at the behest of the NAWASA itself.

What the NAWASA should
have done, if it seriously desired to project the issue of just compensation or
fair market value, tak­ing into account what it now claims as the depreciation
of the pro­perties of the waterworks system, was to file the proper motion in
writing with the court a quo, accompanied by supporting
affidavits and other documents. 
The NAWASA did not even attempt to present in evidence the records of
the properties and other assets of the waterworks system which are in its
control, possession and custody, to prove the matter of just compensation and
the fact of depreciation.

ACCORDINGLY, this appeal by the NAWASA is hereby dis­missed.  Costs against the NAWASA.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed., 1951, p. 952; Bouvier’s
Law Dictionary, 3rd Revision, Vol. I, p. 1651.