Anti-Graft League of the Philippines v.

San Juan
FACTS:
Marcos issued a decree establishing the Technological Colleges of Rizal. It directed the Board to provide funds for the purchase
of 4 parcels of land which belonged to Ortigas &Co. For 12 yrs, the land was idle and construction did not materialize so the
Board authorized the selling of the lot. This was sold to Valley View Realty. Ortigas filed for rescission of contract contending
that it violated the terms of the contract by selling such lot to Valley View. The Board made a Resolution providing for the
rescission of the deed of sale to Valley View.
Valley View filed a case against the Province of Rizal for specific performance but was dismissed. Thereafter, a compromise
agreement was executed between Province and Ortigas to reconvey the lots to Ortigas. The Anti-Graft League of the
Philippines is a non-government organization, constituted to protect the interest of the Republic and its instrumentalities and
political subdivisions against abuses its public official and employees, claims the instant petition for certiorari is a taxpayer’s suit
because the Provincial Board of Rizal allegedly illegally disbursed public funds in transactions involving the land.

ISSUE:
W/N this is a case of taxpayer’s suit.

HELD:
To constitute a taxpayer’s suit, two requisites: (1) that public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality
and (2) in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed, and that the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged
ultra vires act.
In the case at bar, petitioner’s standing should not even be made an issue here since standing is a concept in constitutional law
and here no constitutional question is actually involved. The disbursement of public funds was only made when the Province
bought the lands from Ortigas. Petitioner never referred to such purchase as an illegal disbursement of public funds but
focused on the alleged fraudulent reconveyance of said property to Ortigas because the price paid was lower than the
prevailing market value of neighboring lots.
As a taxpayer, petitioner would somehow be adversely affected by an illegal use of public money. But when no such unlawful
spending has been shown petitioner, even as a taxpayer, cannot question the transaction executed by the Province and Ortigas
for the reason that it is not privy to said contract.