Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28113)
Facts:
Municipality of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, and Amer Macaorao Balindong, petitioners, v. Pangandapun Benito, Hadji Norodin Macapunung, Hadji Hasan Macarampad, Frederick V. Dujerte, Modaco Ontal, Maronsong Andoy, Macalaba Indar Lao, respondents, G.R. No. L-28113, March 28, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ruiz Castro, J., writing for the Court.The antecedent facts are straightforward: the municipality of Balabagan was created by Executive Order No. 386, dated March 15, 1960, by President Carlos P. Garcia, out of several barrios and sitios formerly belonging to the municipality of Malabang. Petitioners are the mother municipality (Malabang) and its mayor, Amer M. Balindong; respondents are the mayor and councilors of the newly created Balabagan. Balabagan organized under the Executive Order, its officers were either elected or appointed, and it exercised municipal functions for about five years.
Petitioners filed an action for prohibition seeking to nullify Executive Order 386 and to restrain the Balabagan officials from exercising municipal functions. Their petition relied principally on Pelaez v. Auditor General and Municipality of San Joaquin v. Siva, which had cast doubt on the President’s power to create municipalities under Section 68 of the Administrative Code vis-à-vis Section 23 of Republic Act No. 2370 (Barrio Charter Act) and Article VII, Section 10(1) of the Constitution. Respondents admitted the factual recitation but defended on the ground that Balabagan at least constituted a de facto municipal corporation — organized “under color” of an existing statute before Pelaez — and thus could not be collateral ly attacked by private parties.
The Supreme Court considered whether a municipality created under an executive order that was later held beyond authority could nevertheless be a de facto corporation whose existence could not be collaterally impaired. The Court reviewed prior Philippine and foreign authorities (including U.S. precedents and doctrinal commentary) and observed that the existence of an act lat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May petitioners collaterally attack the existence of the municipality of Balabagan (i.e., do they have a justiciable interest to seek prohibition)?
- Can Balabagan be regarded as a de facto municipal corporation so as to bar collateral attack, despite its creation under an executive order subsequently held invalid?
- Was Executive Order No. 386 void and must the respondents be restrained from exercising the fun...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)