Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > August 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21788 August 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF PASACAO v. PROV’L. BOARD OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21788. August 28, 1969.]

THE MUNICIPALITY OF PASACAO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CAMARINES SUR and THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIBMANAN, Respondents-Appellants.

General & General for petitioner Appellant.

Rolando M. Carandang for respondent-appellant Municipality.

Provincial Fiscal Edmundo S. Alberto for respondent-appellant Provincial Board.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; SETTLEMENT OF MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DISPUTE; NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COMMISSIONER’S REPORT; EFFECT OF LACK OF NOTICE. — The circumstance that the Provincial Board enacted the questioned resolution awarding the disputed area to the Municipality of Libmanan without first informing the petitioner of the commissioner’s report was not a grave abuse of discretion but a mere irregularity which could have been a ground to ask the Board to reconsider its action, and, if turned down, to appeal to the proper authority.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR ON RESOLUTION. — Where the resolution of the Provincial Board was approved in the absence of the Provincial Governor, who was out on official business, and one of the two Board members acted in his place as presiding officer in the session, the decision reached is valid. The failure of the Provincial Governor to question the authority of the said Board member to preside was in effect a ratification of the action taken.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF COMMISSIONER’S REPORT ON POWER OF PROVINCIAL BOARD TO MAKE ITS DECISION. — The Provincial Board is not bound to follow the recommendation of the Commissioner whom it had empowered to investigate the municipal boundary dispute. The power and authority to make the decision is in the hands of the Board, subject only to appeal to the Office of the President.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


The municipalities of Pasacao and Libmanan, both of the province of Camarines Sur, are situated along the Ragay Gulf. At the coastal barrio of Tinalmud they are separated by a river, which also divides their respective marine waters from which they derive income by leasing the same to fishing concessionaires. Sometime in 1952 a dispute arose between them when the municipality of Libmanan began claiming a certain portion of the marine waters allegedly belonging to the municipality of Pasacao. They agreed to refer the dispute to the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur for decision. The Board in turn referred the matter to a commissioner for investigation and after the commissioner submitted his report dated January 2, 1953, the Board, on February 13, 1954, approved Resolution No. 57 awarding the disputed area to the Municipality of Libmanan.

On April 5, 1954 the municipality of Libmanan filed an ordinary civil action (Civil Case No. 2631) against the municipality of Pasacao in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for recovery of possession of the municipal waters awarded to the former by virtue of Resolution No. 57. On March 21, 1961, while the said action was still pending trial, the municipality of Pasacao instituted its own proceeding — a petition for certiorari against the municipality of Libmanan and the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur — for the annulment of Resolution No. 57, alleging that the same had been enacted by the Board with grave abuse of discretion because: (I) the petitioner was not informed of the report of the commissioner who had been directed to investigate the dispute between the two municipalities nor given a hearing thereon before the resolution was passed; (2) the resolution did not have the concurrence of the Provincial Governor, but only of the two members of the Provincial Board; and (3) the report of the Commissioner was actually in favor of the petitioner.

The respondents respectively answered the petition but the municipality of Libmanan subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the trial court in an order issued on January 10, 1963. The herein petitioner moved to reconsider the order of dismissal, and after the motion was denied elevated the case to us on appeal.

The order appealed from must be sustained. The parties are agreed that the law which governs the dispute between the two municipalities is Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 2167. — Municipal boundary dispute — How Settled. — Disputes as to jurisdiction of municipal governments over places or barrios shall be decided by the provincial boards of the provinces in which such municipalities are situated, after an investigation at which the municipalities concerned shall be duly heard. From the decision of the provincial board appeal may be taken by The municipality aggrieved to the Secretary of Interior (now Office of the Executive Secretary), whose decision shall be final . . .

The circumstance that the Provincial Board enacted the questioned resolution without first informing the petitioner of the Commissioner’s report was not a grave abuse of discretion, as pointed out by the trial court, but a mere irregularity which could have been a ground to ask the Board to reconsider its action, and if turned down, to appeal to the proper authority. The fact is that when the respondent municipality filed Civil Case No. 2631 on April 5,1954, less than two months after the approval of Resolution No. 57, the petitioner came to know of its existence, since it was alleged in the complaint as the ground for the right of possession sought to be enforced; and subsequently, in May 1955, a copy of said resolution was presented in evidence. Even then, therefore, the petitioner should have taken the necessary steps to elevate the matter on appeal to the office of the President, pursuant to Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code. Or if the petitioner believed that its remedy lay in asking for the annulment of the resolution, it should have filed the corresponding action for that purpose at the time, or put up the alleged nullity as a defense in the action itself filed by the respondent municipality for recovery of possession. Certiorari is not a proper substitute for appeal, or for an action or defense which is available, since it is justified only when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. And when, as in this case, the petition for certiorari was not filed until after the lapse of more than six years from the time the question should have been brought up, laches would constitute an additional obstacle to the proceeding.

The contention that the challenged resolution is null and void because it did not have the concurrence of the Provincial Governor does not deserve serious consideration. It appears that when the resolution was approved the said official was absent on official business, and one of the two Board members acted in his place as presiding officer in the session held for the purpose. The fact that the Governor did not thereafter question the authority of the Asia Board member to preside was in effect a ratification of the action taken. The petitioner has not cited any law to support the suggestion that whenever the Provincial Governor is absent the Provincial Board is rendered powerless to carry on its corporate functions.

The last argument of the petitioner is that the Provincial Board did not follow the recommendation of the Commissioner whom it had empowered to investigate the dispute. This, however, is beside the point, because the decision was in the hands of the Board, subject only to appeal to the office of the President, and the issue in this case is one of power or authority, not the correctness of the decision actually rendered and embodied in Resolution No. 57.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L. and Zaldivar, JJ., are on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-28269 August 15, 1969 - CONSUELO VDA. DE QUIRINO v. JOSE PALARCA

  • G.R. Nos. L-21385-86 August 22, 1969 - CRISPINIANO BLANCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27431 August 22, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO HAMTIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 August 22, 1969 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30341 August 22, 1969 - REMIGIO R. ESQUILLO v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-30165 August 22, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSENDO RESUELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30830 August 22, 1969 - PCI BANK v. ELRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22685 August 25, 1969 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. SIMEON POLICARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26948 August 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO PAGADUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29209 August 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO SOLACITO

  • G.R. No. L-29131 August 27, 1969 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. MIGUEL D. TECSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27580 August 27, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. UY PIEK TUY

  • G.R. No. L-27429 August 27, 1969 - IN RE: OH HEK HOW v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27002 August 27, 1969 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. PRISCILO PORTIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21581 August 28, 1969 - AVELINA LANZAR v. RAFAEL GUERRERO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22263 August 28, 1969 - F. SARE ENTERPRISES v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25710 August 28, 1969 - IN RE: AQUILINO DEL ROSARIO, JR., ET AL. v. JUANITA OLIDAR VDA. MERCADO

  • G.R. Nos. L-29092-93 August 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERMAN SERAFICA

  • G.R. No. L-29618 August 28, 1969 - BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30149 August 28, 1969 - IN RE: ANECITO SING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21788 August 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF PASACAO v. PROV’L. BOARD OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22219 August 28, 1969 - ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25138 August 28, 1969 - JOSE A. BELTRAN, ET AL. v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-25355 August 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN LAGRIMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24791 August 29, 1969 - APOLONIA MIRANDA, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-26826 August 29, 1969 - BALDOMERO S. LUQUE v. JUDGE UNION C. KAYANAN

  • G.R. No. L-27863 August 29, 1969 - LUZON METAL AND PLUMBING WORKS CO., INC. v. MANILA UNDERWRITERS INS. CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22614 August 29, 1969 - RAMIREZ TELEPHONE CORP. v. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23757 August 29, 1969 - JOSE MARlA ANDUIZA, ET AL. v. SANTOS DY-KIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29166 August 29, 1969 - IN RE: ROSALIA TAN COHON v. ELECTION REGISTRAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29396 August 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO P. VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29748 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. FERNANDO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-29922 August 29, 1969 - BENJAMIN H. AVES v. EDUARDO L. JOSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28505 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. ESTANISLAO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-23921 August 29, 1969 - RIZALINA G. GALSIM, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-24765 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. MAXIMO STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 415 August 29, 1969 - DR. ADRIANO B. VELASQUEZ v. APOLONIO BARRERA

  • G.R. No. L-23396 August 29, 1969 - ARSENIA GUARDIANO v. JORGE ENCARNACION

  • G.R. Nos. L-23786-87 August 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO MANUEL

  • A.C. No. 116 August 29, 1969 - AMBROSIO DIAMALON v. JESUS QUINTILLAN

  • G.R. No. L-21906 August 29, 1969 - INOCENCIA DELUAO, ET AL. v. NICANOR CASTEEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23857 August 29, 1969 - INSULAR LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25407 August 29, 1969 - PILAR M. NORMANDY, ET AL. v. CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25180 August 29, 1969 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. RICARDO C. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24318 August 29, 1969 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. RICMA TRADING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29264 August 29, 1969 - BARBARA LOMBOS RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26442 August 29, 1969 - MANUELA S. FORMENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.