JOYA v.

PCGG
G.R. No. 96541
August 24, 1993

FACTS:
- Mateo Caparas, then Chairman of the PCGG, through the authority granted by then Pres.
Aquino, signed a Consignment Agreement allowing Christie’s of New York to auction o Old
Masters Paintings and the 18th and 19th century silverware alleged to be part of the ill-
gotten wealth of Pres. Marcos, his relatives, and cronies, for and in behalf of RP.
- 35 petitioners in this Special Civil Action for Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order sought to enjoin PCGG from proceeding with
the auction sale which nevertheless proceeded on schedule.
- Petitioners claim that, as Filipino citizens, taxpayers, and artists deeply concerned with the
preservation and protection of the country’s artistic wealth and that the paintings and
silverware are public properties collectively owned by them and the people in general to view
and enjoy as great works of art alleging that they have been deprived of their right to public
property without due process of law, they have the legal personality to restrain the
respondents who are acting contrary to their public duty to conserve the artistic creations as
mandated by Sec. 14-18 of Art. XIV of the Constitution and RA 4846.

ISSUE:
- WON this case can be considered as taxpayer’s suit
RULING:
- NO
- The petitioners have no legal standing to le this petition. The con scation of the subject
items by the Aquino administration should not be understood to mean that its ownership has
automatically passed on to the government without complying with constitutional or
statutory requirements.
- Although this action is also one of mandamus led by concerned citizens, it does not ful ll
the criteria for a mandamus suit. In Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, this Court laid down
the rule that a writ of mandamus may be issued to a citizen only when the public right to be
enforced and the concomitant duty of the state are unequivocably set forth in the
Constitution. In the case at bar, petitioners are not after the ful llment of a positive duty
required of respondent o cials under the 1987 Constitution. What they seek is the enjoining
of an o cial act because it is constitutionally in rmed. Moreover, petitioners' claim for the
continued enjoyment and appreciation by the public of the artworks is at most a privilege
and is unenforceable as a constitutional right in this action for mandamus.
- Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's suit. Not every action led by a taxpayer
can qualify to challenge the legality of o cial acts done by the government. A taxpayer's suit
can prosper only if the governmental acts being questioned involve disbursement of public
funds upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an o cer of the state for the
purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds,
which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. Obviously, petitioners are not
challenging any expenditure involving public funds but the disposition of what they allege to
be public properties. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit that the paintings and antique
silverware were acquired from private sources and not with public money.
ffi
ffi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ff
fi