THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 187349, August 17, 2016
BARANGAY MAYAMOT, ANTIPOLO CITY, Petitioner, v. ANTIPOLO CITY, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF ANTIPOLO, BARANGAYS STA. CRUZ, BAGONG NAYON AND MAMBUGAN, AND CITY ASSESSOR AND TREASURER, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision2 dated January 30, 2009, which affirmed the Decision3 dated August 1, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City in Civil Case No. 99-5478 for Declaration of Nullity and/or Annulment of Resolution No. 97-89 and Injunction, and Court of Appeals' Resolution4 dated March 31, 2009 denying the Motion for Reconsideration5 filed on February 17, 2009.
WHEREAS, this body has unanimously agreed and requested the Assessor's Office which is competent enough in the determination of Barangay territorial boundaries in accordance with existing survey plans and assessment records;On September 21, 1999, Barangay Mayamot filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity and/or Annulment of Resolution No. 97-89 and Injunction11 against Antipolo City, Sangguniang Panglungsod of Antipolo, Barangays Sta. Cruz, Bagong Nayon, Cupang, and Mambugan, the City Assessor and the City Treasurer before the RTC of Antipolo City.
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Lands Cadastral Survey No. 29-047 has defined the boundaries of the eight (8) formerly existing and has continued to exist [barangays], namely: San Roque, San Jose, San Isidro, Dela Paz, Calawis, Cupang, Mambugan and Mayamot;
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Nos. 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793 and 794, the territorial boundaries of barangays: Beverly Hills, Dalig, Bagong Nayon, San Juan, Sta. Cruz, Munting Dilaw, San Luis and Inarawan respectively has been clearly defined;
WHEREAS, to avoid administrative conflicts and territorial encroachments among barangay governments, it is just and proper to identify and delineate barangay territorial boundaries in [accordance] with the Cadastral Survey for Old Barangays and the laws creating the new barangays as prepared and plotted by the Assessor's Office;
WHEREAS, development projects envisioned by the government [will] be adversely affected if boundary disputes of barangays will not be resolved in due time;
WHEREAS, the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) has unanimously acknowledged and endorsed the Scheme and means of [delineating] Barangay territorial boundaries hereinabove presented;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 80 of Batas Pambansa 337 or the Local Government Code provides that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary"Boundary disputes between barangays within the same Municipality shall be heard and decided by the Sangguniang Bayan concerned for the purpose of affording the parties an opportunity to reach an amicable settlement. x x x";AFTER DUE DELIBERATION and on motion made by Councilor Josme M. Macabuhay seconded by majority of the members present, it was...
RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved to approve the barangay boundaries specified and delineated in the plans/maps prepared by the Assessor's Office, Antipolo, Rizal based on Cadastral Survey No. 29-047 and Batas Pambansa Nos. 787 to 794;
RESOLVED FINALLY, to furnish copies of this resolution all Councilors and Barangay [Councils] of this jurisdiction for their information and guidance.10 (Emphasis supplied.)
x x x [T]he Court opines that Resolution No. 97-89 did not intend to alter the territorial boundary of Barangay Mayamot or any existing or newly created barangay at the time of its passing. Said Resolution was in fact passed in consequence of and pursuant to Batas Pambansa Nos. 787 to 794 creating the eight new barangays of then Municipality of Antipolo. x x xBarangay Mayamot filed its Notice of Appeal16 on August 29, 2006.
A perusal of the Minutes reveals that it was never the intention of the Sangguniang Bayan of Antipolo to alter or modify the territorial boundaries of Barangay Mayamot. Under the presumption of regularity, it relied on the Cadastral Survey Plan duly approved by the Bureau of Lands as indeed correctly defining the existing territorial boundary of Barangay Mayamot. Not intending to alter any territorial boundary, Resolution No. 97-89 is not an ordinance contemplated under Section 82 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 as required to hold a plebiscite.
Any issue of discrepancy resulting in the adoption of Resolution [No.] 97-89 between the boundary defined in the Cadastral Survey Plan and the actual physical boundary itself of Barangay Mayamot is a boundary dispute which should have been properly ventilated in accordance with the remedies available under the Local Government Code of 1983, the prevailing law at the time of the passing of the subject resolution. x x x15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Notably, the LGC of 1991 grants an expanded role on the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan in resolving cases of barangay boundary disputes. Aside from having the function of bringing the contending parties together and intervening or assisting in the amicable settlement of the case, the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan is now specifically vested with original jurisdiction to actually hear and decide the dispute in accordance with the procedures laid down in the law and its implementing rules and regulations. The trial court loses its power to try, at the first instance, cases of barangay boundary disputes and only in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction can the RTC decide the case.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryOn February 17, 2009, Barangay Mayamot filed a Motion for Reconsideration,21 which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution22 dated March 31, 2009.
Section 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of Boundary Dispute. - Boundary disputes between and among local government units shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. To this end:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryBased on the foregoing, it is clear that the RTC is without jurisdiction to settle a boundary dispute involving barangays in the same city or municipality. Said dispute shall be referred for settlement to the sangguniang panglungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned. If there is failure of amicable settlement, the dispute shall be formally tried by the sanggunian concerned and shall decide the same within sixty (60) days from the date of the certification referred to. Further, the decision of the sanggunian may be appealed to the RTC having jurisdiction over the area in dispute, within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.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. x x x
(a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more barangays in the same city or municipality shall be referred for settlement to the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned. x x x (e) In the event the sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be formally tried by the sanggunian concerned which shall decide the issue within sixty (60) days from the date of the certification referred to above.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 19-36.
2 CA-G.R. CV No. 87854, penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., of the Eleventh Division, id. at 39-48.
3 Records, pp. 287-289.
4Rollo, pp. 37-38.
5 CA rollo, pp. 71-75.
6Rollo, p. 40.
7Id.
8Id.; Records, p. 8.
9 Records, pp. 8-10.
10Id. at 8-9.
11Id. at 1-7.
12Id. at 2-3.
13Id. at 3-4.
14Supra note 3.
15 Records, p. 288.
16Id. at 290.
17Rollo, p. 45.
18Id.
19 An Act Providing for A Local Government Code of 1991 (1991).
20Rollo, p. 47.
21Supra note 5.
22Supra note 4.
23Rollo, pp. 29-30, 33-34.
24Id. at 69-73.
25cralawred Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 306, 312.
26Del Valle, Jr. v. Dy, G.R. No. 170977, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 355, 364, citing Villamaria, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165881, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 571, 589.
27Munsalud v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 167181, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 144, 157.
28Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hong, G.R. No. 161771, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 71, 77, citing Llamas v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 149588, September 29, 2009, 601 SCRA 228, 233.
29 Records, pp. 2-3.
30 Rule III, Art. 15, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, Administrative Order No. 270 (1992).
31 G.R. No. 140474, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 586, 595-596.
32 G.R. No. 157714, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 130, 142-145.
33Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 546, 559-560, citing Lozon v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 107660, January 2, 1995, 240 SCRA 1, 11.