Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50699:gr-169435-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:27:13+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 169435 - MUNICIPALITY OF NUEVA ERA, ETC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MARCOS, ET AL.
MUNICIPALITY OF NUEVA ERA, ILOCOS NORTE, represented by its Municipal Mayor, CAROLINE ARZADON-GARVIDA, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPALITY OF MARCOS, ILOCOS NORTE, represented by its Municipal Mayor, SALVADOR PILLOS, and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
AS the law creating a municipality fixes its boundaries, settlement of boundary disputes between municipalities is facilitated by carrying into effect the law that created them.
For Our review on certiorari is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) reversing to a certain extent that3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, in a case that originated from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Ilocos Norte about the boundary dispute between the Municipalities of Marcos and Nueva Era in Ilocos Norte.
The CA declared that Marcos is entitled to have its eastern boundary extended up "to the boundary line between the province of Ilocos Norte and Kalinga-Apayao."4 By this extension of Marcos' eastern boundary, the CA allocated to Marcos a portion of Nueva Era's territory.
The Municipality of Nueva Era was created from the settlements of Bugayong, Cabittaoran, Garnaden, Padpadon, Padsan, Paorpatoc, Tibangran, and Uguis which were previously organized as rancherias, each of which was under the independent control of a chief. Governor General Francis Burton Harrison, acting on a resolution passed by the provincial government of Ilocos Norte, united these rancherias and created the township of Nueva Era by virtue of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 66 5 dated September 30, 1916.
On the Northwest, by the barrios Biding-Rangay boundary going down to the barrios Capariaan-Gabon boundary consisting of foot path and feeder road; on the Northeast, by the Burnay River which is the common boundary of barrios Agunit and Naglayaan; on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary; on the South, by the Padsan River which is at the same time the boundary between the municipalities of Banna and Dingras; on the West and Southwest, by the boundary between the municipalities of Batac and Dingras.
The Municipality of Marcos shall have its seat of government in the barrio of Biding.
Based on the first paragraph of the said Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753, it is clear that Marcos shall be derived from the listed barangays of Dingras, namely: Capariaan, Biding, Escoda, Culao, Alabaan, Ragas and Agunit. The Municipality of Nueva Era or any of its barangays was not mentioned. Hence, if based only on said paragraph, it is clear that Nueva Era may not be considered as a source of territory of Marcos.
There is no issue insofar as the first paragraph is concerned which named only Dingras as the mother municipality of Marcos. The problem, however, lies in the description of Marcos' boundaries as stated in the second paragraph, particularly in the phrase: "on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary."
It must be noted that the term "Mt. Province" stated in the above phrase refers to the present adjoining provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Kalinga and Apayao, which were then a single province.
Mt. Province was divided into the four provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao by virtue of R.A. No. 4695 which was enacted on June 18, 1966. On February 14, 1995, the province of Kalinga-Apayao, which comprises the sub-provinces of Kalinga and Apayao, was further converted into the regular provinces of Kalinga and Apayao pursuant to R.A. No. 7878.
The part of then Mt. Province which was at the east of Marcos is now the province of Apayao. Hence, the eastern boundary referred to by the second paragraph of Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753 is the present Ilocos Norte-Apayao boundary.
Marcos did not claim any part of Nueva Era as its own territory until after almost 30 years,7 or only on March 8, 1993, when its Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 93-015.8 Said resolution was entitled: "Resolution Claiming an Area which is an Original Part of Nueva Era, But Now Separated Due to the Creation of Marcos Town in the Province of Ilocos Norte."
In view of its claim over the middle portion of Nueva Era, Marcos posited that Nueva Era was cut into two parts. And since the law required that the land area of a municipality must be compact and contiguous, Nueva Era's northern isolated portion could no longer be considered as its territory but that of Marcos'. Thus, Marcos claimed that it was entitled not only to the middle portion11 of Nueva Era but also to Nueva Era's isolated northern portion. These areas claimed by Marcos were within Barangay Sto. NiÃ±o, Nueva Era.
From the time Marcos was created in 1963, its eastern boundary had been considered to be aligned and coterminous with the eastern boundary of the adjacent municipality of Dingras. However, based on a re-survey in 1992, supposedly done to conform to the second paragraph of Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753, an area of 15,400 hectares of Nueva Era was alleged to form part of Marcos.14 This was the area of Barangay Sto. NiÃ±o, Nueva Era that Marcos claimed in its position paper.
x x x Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the eastern boundary of Marcos is indeed Mountain Province, Marcos will then be claiming a portion of Abra because the province, specifically Barangay Sto. NiÃ±o, Nueva Era, is actually bounded on the East by the Province of Abra. Abra is situated between and separates the Provinces of Ilocos Norte and Mountain Province.
Invariably, it is not the letter, but the spirit of the law and the intent of the legislature that is important. When the interpretation of the statute according to the exact and literal import of its words would lead to absurdity, it should be construed according to the spirit and reason, disregarding if necessary the letters of the law. It is believed that congress did not intend to have this absurd situation to be created when it created the Municipality of Marcos. This body, by the mandate given to it by the RA 7160 otherwise known Local Government Code, so believes that respondent Nueva Era or any portion thereof has been excluded from the ambit of RA 3753. Under the principle of "espressio (sic) unios (sic) est exclusio alterius," by expressly naming the barangays that will comprise the town of Marcos, those not mentioned are deemed excluded. In Republic Act 4354, where Section 2 thereof enumerated the barrios comprising the City of Davao excluding the petitioner Barrio Central as part of the said City, the court held that there arose a prima facie conclusion that the said law abolished Barrio Central as part of Davao City.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte is hereby AFFIRMED.
The position of the Municipality of Marcos is that the provision of R.A. 3753 as regards its boundary on the East which is the "Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province" should prevail.
On the other hand, the Municipality of Nueva Era posits the theory that only the barrios of the Municipality of Dingras as stated in R.A. 3753 should be included in the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Marcos. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan agreed with the position of Nueva Era.
This bill seeks to create in the Province of Ilocos Norte a new municipality to be known as the Municipality of Marcos, to be comprised by the present barrios of Capariaan, Biding Escoda, Culao, Alabaan, Ragas and Agunit, all in the Municipality of Dingras of the same province. The seat of government will be in the sitio of San Magro in the present barrio of Ragas.
On the other hand, the Municipality of Dingras will not be adversely affected too much because its finances will still be sound and stable. Its capacity to comply with its obligations, especially to its employees and personnel, will not be diminished nor its operations paralyzed. On the contrary, economic development in both the mother and the proposed municipalities will be accelerated.
In view of the foregoing, approval of this bill is earnestly requested.
1. Whether or not the site of Hercules Minerals and Oil, Inc. which is within a Government Forest Reservation in Barangay Sto. NiÃ±o, formerly of Nueva Era, is a part of the newly created Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte.
The twin issues involved two portions of Nueva Era, viz.: (1) middle portion, where Hercules Minerals and Oil, Inc. is located; and (2) northern portion of Nueva Era, which, according to Marcos, was isolated from Nueva Era in view of the integration to Marcos of said middle portion.
WHEREFORE, we partially GRANT the petition treated as one for certiorari. The Decisions of both the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as they made the eastern boundary of the municipality of Marcos co-terminous with the eastern boundary of Dingras town, and another is rendered extending the said boundary of Marcos to the boundary line between the province of Ilocos Norte and Kalinga-Apayao, but the same Decisions are AFFIRMED with respect to the denial of the claim of Marcos to the detached northern portion of barangay Sto. NiÃ±o which should, as it is hereby ordered to, remain with the municipality of Nueva Era. No costs.
"On the Northwest by the barrios Biding-Rangay boundary going down to the barrios Capariaan-Gabon boundary consisting of foot path and feeder road; on the Northeast, by the Burnay River which is the common boundary of barrios Agunit and Naglayaan; on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary; on the South by the Padsan River, which is at the same time the boundary between the municipalities of Banna and Dingras; on the West and Southwest by the boundary between the municipalities of Batac and Dingras."
To stop short at the eastern boundary of Dingras as the eastern boundary also of Marcos and refusing to go farther to the boundary line between Ilocos Norte and Mountain Province (Kalinga-Apayao) is tantamount to amending the law which Congress alone can do. Both the SP and RTC have no competence to undo a valid act of Congress.
Going now to the other area involved, i.e., the portion of Sto. NiÃ±o that is separated from its mother town Nueva Era and now lies east of the municipalities of Solsona and Dingras and north of Marcos, it bears stressing that it is not included within the area of Marcos as defined by law. But since it is already detached from Sto. NiÃ±o, Marcos is laying claim to it to be integrated into its territory by the SP because it is contiguous to a portion of said municipality.
A final word. At the outset, we agonized over the dilemma of choosing between dismissing outright the petition at bar or entertaining it. This is for the simple reason that a Petition for Review is a mode of appeal and is not appropriate as the Local Government Code provides for the remedy of appeal in boundary disputes only to the Regional Trial Court but not any further appeal to this Court. Appeal is a purely statutory right. It cannot be exercised unless it is expressly granted by law. This is too basic to require the citation of supporting authority.
Nueva Era was not pleased with the decision of the CA. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Basically, there are two (2) issues to resolve here: (1) whether or not the mode of appeal adopted by Marcos in bringing the case to the CA is proper; and (2) whether or not the eastern boundary of Marcos extends over and covers a portion of Nueva Era.
Marcos correctly appealed the RTC judgment via Petition for Review under Rule 42.
The SP of Ilocos validly took cognizance of the dispute between the parties. The appeal of the SP judgment to the RTC was likewise properly filed by Marcos before the RTC. The problem, however, lies in whether the RTC judgment may still be further appealed to the CA.
SECTION 119. Appeal. - Within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party may elevate the decision of the sanggunian concerned to the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area in dispute. The Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within one (1) year from the filing thereof. Pending final resolution of the disputed area prior to the dispute shall be maintained and continued for all legal purposes.
The CA erred in declaring that only the RTC has appellate jurisdiction over the judgment of the SP.
True, appeal is a purely statutory right and it cannot be exercised unless it is expressly granted by law. Nevertheless, the CA can pass upon the Petition for Review precisely because the law allows it.
Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by R.A. No. 7902,38 vests in the CA the appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, among others.39 B.P. Blg. 129 has been further supplemented by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides for the remedy of appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 42 to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Thus, the CA need not treat the appeal via Petition for Review filed by Marcos as a Petition for Certiorari to be able to pass upon the same. B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, which is supplemented by Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, gives the CA the authority to entertain appeals of such judgments and final orders rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
At the time of creation of Marcos, approval in a plebiscite of the creation of a local government unit is not required.
Nueva Era contends that the constitutional and statutory43 plebiscite requirement for the creation of a local government unit is applicable to this case. It posits that the claim of Marcos to its territory should be denied due to lack of the required plebiscite.
We agree with Nueva Era's contention that Marcos' claim over parts of its territory is not tenable. However, the reason is not the lack of the required plebiscite under the 1987 and 1973 constitutions and the Local Government Code of 1991 but other reasons as will be discussed below.
At the time Marcos was created, a plebiscite was not required by law to create a local government unit. Hence, Marcos was validly created without conducting a plebiscite. As a matter of fact, no plebiscite was conducted in Dingras, where it was derived.
Petitioners assail the charter of the City of Mandaue as unconstitutional for not having been ratified by the residents of the city in a plebiscite. This contention is untenable. The Constitutional requirement that the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary of a province, city, municipality, or barrio should be subject to the approval by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the governmental unit or units affected is a new requirement that came into being only with the 1973 Constitution. It is prospective in character and therefore cannot affect the creation of the City of Mandaue which came into existence on June 21, 1969.47 (Citations omitted and underlining supplied).
Moreover, by deciding this case, We are not creating Marcos but merely interpreting the law that created it. Its creation was already a fait accompli. Therefore, there is no reason for Us to further require a plebiscite.
No part of Nueva Era's territory was taken for the creation of Marcos under R.A. No. 3753.
Since only the barangays of Dingras are enumerated as Marcos' source of territory, Nueva Era's territory is, therefore, excluded.
Furthermore, this conclusion on the intention of the legislature is bolstered by the explanatory note of the bill which paved the way for the creation of Marcos. Said explanatory note mentioned only Dingras as the mother municipality of Marcos.
Despite the omission of Nueva Era as a mother territory in the law creating Marcos, the latter still contends that said law included Nueva Era. It alleges that based on the description of its boundaries, a portion of Nueva Era is within its territory.
Marcos contends that since it is "bounded on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary," a portion of Nueva Era formed part of its territory because, according to it, Nueva Era is between the Marcos and Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary. Marcos posits that in order for its eastern side to reach the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary, it will necessarily traverse the middle portion of Nueva Era.
Marcos further claims that it is entitled not only to the middle portion of Nueva Era but also to its northern portion which, as a consequence, was isolated from the major part of Nueva Era.
We cannot accept the contentions of Marcos.
Only Dingras is specifically named by law as source territory of Marcos. Hence, the said description of boundaries of Marcos is descriptive only of the listed barangays of Dingras as a compact and contiguous territory.
Considering that the description of the eastern boundary of Marcos under R.A. No. 3753 is ambiguous, the same must be interpreted in light of the legislative intent.
The law must be given a reasonable interpretation, to preclude absurdity in its application.55 We thus uphold the legislative intent to create Marcos out of the territory of Dingras only.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is partly REVERSED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Ilocos Norte is Reinstated.
** On leave per Special Order No. 486 dated February 15, 2008.
1 Municipality of Jimenez v. Baz, 333 Phil. 1, 18 (1996).
2 Rollo, pp. 31-46. Dated June 6, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 64147, entitled "Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte v. Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte." Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr., with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring.
3 Id. at 123-129; records, pp. 437-443. Dated March 19, 2001 in Sp. Civil Action No. 12073. Penned by Judge Perla B. Querubin.
5 E.O. No. 66 signed by Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison reads: Upon the recommendation of the Honorable, Secretary of the Interior and the Provincial Board of Ilocos Norte, and pursuant to the provisions of section twenty-three hundred and ninety-one of the Administrative Code, the settlements of Bugayong, Cabittaoran, Garnaden, Padpadon, Padsan, Paor-patoc, Tibangran, and Uguis in the Province of Ilocos Norte, are hereby consolidated and organized in to a township to be known as the township of Nueva Era. The seat of the township government of the township of Nueva Era shall be at the settlement of Bugayong.
8 Id.; records, pp. 2-3.
12 Records, p. 13; id.
20 Id. at 437-443; rollo, pp. 123-129.
22 Rollo, p. 128; id. at 442. Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates (1963), Vol. II, Part I, p. 1474.
24 CA rollo, pp. 2-12.
34 Local Government Code (1991), Sec. 118(e).
35 Republic Act No. 7160 (1991).
38 Effective March 18, 1995, entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, Amending for the Purpose Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, As Amended, Known As the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980."
39 Keswani v. Republic, G.R. No. 153986, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 145, 150.
SECTION 3. No province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code, and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.
41 373 Phil. 386 (1999).
42 Miranda v. Aguirre, id. at 400.
SECTION 10. Plebiscite Requirement. - No creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units shall take effect unless approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action, unless said law or ordinance fixes another date.
44 Grego v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 481, 493.
45 Union Carbide Labor Union v. Union Carbide Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. L-41314, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 554, 558.
46 G.R. No. L-52304, January 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 763.
47 Ceniza v. Commission on Elections, id. at 774.
48 Cruz, I.A., Constitutional Law, 1998 ed., p. 10.
49 Tolentino v. Paqueo, G.R. No. 150606, June 7, 2007, 523 SCRA 377, 387; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Philippine American Accident Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 141658, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 668, 688; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 150947, July 15, 2003, 406 SCRA 178, 186, citing Vera v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-31364, March 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 199, 203.
50 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc., supra, citing Republic v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-35376, September 11, 1980, 99 SCRA 651, 656.
51 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 392 Phil. 618, 642 (2000), citing Sarmiento III v. Mison, G.R. No. L-79974, December 17, 1987, 156 SCRA 549.
52 Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. NOS. 165510-33, July 28, 2006, 497 SCRA 89, 108; Canet v. Decena, 465 Phil. 325, 333 (2004); Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 197, 203; Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. NOS. 48886-88, July 21, 1993, 224 SCRA 665, 670, citing Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 2nd ed., 1990, pp. 160-161.
53 La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 465 Phil. 860, 932 (2004); Chua v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992, 206 SCRA 65, 76, citing People v. Manantan, 115 Phil. 657, 664 (1962).
54 Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., 1995, p. 73.
55 Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494, February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA 702, 715.
56 Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. NOS. 141104 & 148763, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 73, 93, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992, 205 SCRA 184, 188.
57 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., supra.
58 Soriano v. Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation, G.R. No. 78409, September 14, 1989, 177 SCRA 513, 519, citing Bello v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38161, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 509.
59 In re: Request of Justice Bernardo P. Pardo for Adjustment of His Longevity Pay, A.M. No. 02-1-12-SC, March 14, 2007, 518 SCRA 263, 267; Ursua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996, 256 SCRA 147, 152.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.