Inherent Public Purpose Pascual vs.

Secretary of Public Works 110 Phil 331 FACTS: A law was enacted in 1953 containing a provision for the c o n s t r u c t i o n , reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminalswithin Antonio Subdivision owned by Senator Jose C. Zulueta. Zulueta donated saidparcels of land to the Government 5 months after the enactment of the law, on thecondition that if the Government violates such condition the lands would revert toZulueta. The provincial governor of Rizal, Wenceslao Pascual, questioned the validity of the donation and the Constitutionality of the particular provision, it being anappropriation not for a public purpose. ISSUE: Is the appropriation valid? Held: No. The appropriation of amount for the construction on a land owned byprivate individual is invalid imposition since it results in the promotion of privateenterprise, it benefits the property of a particular individual. The provision that theland thereafter be donated to the government does not cure this defect. The rule isthat if the public advantage or benefit is merely incidental in the promotion of aparticular enterprise, such defect shall render the law invalid. On the other hand, if w h a t i s i n c i d e n t a l i s t h e p r o m o t i o n o f a p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e , t h e t a x l a w s h a l l b e deemed for public purpose. Government is Tax-exempt, However it can tax itsel