Leveriza vs.

IAC, 157 SCRA 282 (1988)

SC held that the Airport General Manager had authority to enter into contracts of
lease. In executing Contract C, the Airport General Manager signed for the Director
of the CAA, who subsequently ratified the same. Under sec. 567 of the RAC, a
contract of lease may be executed by: (1) President; (2) officer duly designated by
him; and (3) officer expressly vested by law. Under sec. 32 (24) of RA 776, the
Director of the CAA is one such officer vested by law. Thus, as correctly ruled by the
Court of Appeals, the CAA has the power to execute the deed or contract involving
leases of real properties belonging to the RP, not because it is an entity duly
designated by the President but because the said authority to execute the same is,
by law expressly vested in it, which in this case is RA 776.
Iron and Steel Authority vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 102976, October 25,
1995
ISA appears to be a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Government
of the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, its powers, duties, functions, assets and
liabilities are properly regarded as folded back into the Government of the
Philippines and hence assumed once again by the Republic, no special statutory
provision having been shown to have mandated succession thereto by some other
entity or agency of the Republic.
It follows that the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be substituted in the
expropriation proceedings a party- plaintiff in lieu of ISA, the statutory term of ISA
having expired. The expiration of ISAs statutory did not by itself require or justify
the dismissal of the eminent domain proceedings. Further, no new legislative act is
necessary should the Republic decide, upon being substituted for ISA, in fact to
continue to prosecute the expropriation proceedings.