G.R. No. 10202 - Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Municipality of Bigo

The case involves an action by the Municipality of Cardona (plaintiff) against the Municipality of Binangonan (defendant).
Cardona sought to prohibit Binangonan from exercising municipal authority over several barrios allegedly belonging to Cardona.
The disputed barrios include Tatala, Balatik, Nambug (referred to as Mambug in some parts), Tutulo, Mahabang Parang, Nagsulo, and Bonot.

The defendant municipality derived its authority from Executive Order No. 66, series of 1914, issued by the Governor-General on July 1, 1914.
The order defined and fixed the boundary line between the municipalities of Binangonan and Cardona, as mandated by section one of Act Numbered 1748.
On the mainland, the order traced the boundary beginning at the intersection of the Morong River and the existing Binangonan boundary, moving in a southerly and westerly direction to Mapulanglupa (Santol), then southeast to the summit of Mountain Tutulo, and finally to Laguna de Bay, thereby including the specified barrios within Binangonan’s jurisdiction.
The order further clarified the municipal boundaries on the Island of Talim, allocating certain portions to Cardona and the remainder—including several off-lying islands—to Binangonan.
The executive order also provided that an immediate survey and demarcation of the new boundary line would be undertaken.

The order, and the Act empowering it, were “unconstitutional” because the Act allegedly conferred upon the Governor-General legislative authority, thus constituting an improper delegation of power.
The order was void for failing to state that the change in the municipal division was required by the public good.
The order did not manifestly indicate that there was a present urgency justifying such an administrative act.

Essentially, Cardona contended that the Province’s executive action usurped legislative functions and deviated from requisites of public necessity and timeliness.

The defendant (Municipality of Binangonan) demurred to the complaint alleging that the factual allegations were insufficient to establish a valid cause of action.
The central issue on appeal was whether the objections based on unconstitutionality, absence of a statement regarding public necessity, and lack of declared urgency were legally tenable.

Whether the Act conferring boundary-setting power and the subsequent executive order violated constitutional principles by improperly assigning legislative functions to the Governor-General.
If the delegation of power to the Governor-General in boundary determination is inherently unconstitutional.

Whether the requirement to explicitly state that the boundary change was for the public good and necessitated by urgency was mandatory for the validity of such an order.
If the absence of these statements in the order renders it legally void.

Whether the factual allegations set forth by the Municipality of Cardona were sufficient to support the cause of action.
Whether the objections raised by Cardona, on constitutional and procedural grounds, are substantial enough to thwart the exercise of authority by the Municipality of Binangonan.