Case Digest (G.R. No. 10202)
Facts:
The Government of the Philippine Islands, at the instance of the Municipality of Cardona v. Municipality of Binangonan and L. R. Brown, G.R. No. 10202. September 29, 1914, the Supreme Court (Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concurring), Moreland, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiffs were the Municipality of Cardona, represented by its municipal council, and nominally the Government of the Philippine Islands; defendants were the Municipality of Binangonan, represented by its municipal council, and L. R. Brown, a district engineer of Rizal Province. The complaint, styled a “complaint in an action of quo warranto,” alleged that several barrios (Tatala, Balatik, Nambug, Tutulo, Mahabang Parang, Nagsulo, Sampad, and Bonot) lay within Cardona’s limits but that Binangonan was exercising jurisdiction over them.
Plaintiffs alleged that Binangonan’s asserted jurisdiction rested on Executive Order No. 66 (series 1914) issued by the Governor-General pursuant to Act No. 1748, and that such executive action unlawfully altered municipal boundaries without legislative authority conferred by the Philippine Bill; plaintiffs contended Act No. 1748 was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and that the Executive Order also failed to state affirmatively that it was “for the public benefit,” as they claimed section 1 of the Act required.
Plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that Binangonan was an illegal usurper with respect to the named barrios and sought a preliminary injunction restraining defendant Brown from destroying existing boundary monuments and erecting new ones that would effect the alleged transfer. The complaint was verified and signed by attorneys acting for Cardona, who alleged they had requested the Attorney-General to commence quo warranto but were refused.
The Court limited the present determination to whether plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction. Applying the Code of Civil Procedure’s provisions on preliminary injunctions (noting particularly secs. 164 and 166) and the statutory scope of quo warranto (the provisions beginning at sec. 197), the Court examined the complaint’s sufficiency for injunctive relief and the appropri...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiffs satisfy the statutory requirements for issuance of a preliminary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure (secs. 164 and 166)?
- Is an action in quo warranto the proper remedy to challenge the alleged transfer of barrios and to restrain the defendants’ alleged acts in changing munic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)