Title
Municipality of Pasacao vs. Provincial Board of Camarines Sur
Case
G.R. No. L-21788
Decision Date
Aug 28, 1969
Pasacao challenged Libmanan's claim to disputed marine waters, alleging procedural flaws in the Provincial Board's resolution. The Supreme Court dismissed Pasacao's petition, citing laches and proper remedies.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21788)

Facts:

  • Parties and geographic setting
    • The municipalities of Pasacao and Libmanan, both in the province of Camarines Sur, were situated along the Ragay Gulf.
    • At the coastal barrio of Tinalmud, the municipalities were separated by a river.
    • The river also divided their respective marine waters, from which they derived income by leasing the same to fishing concessionaires.
  • Origin of the dispute and referral to the Provincial Board
    • Sometime in 1952, a dispute arose when Libmanan began claiming a certain portion of the marine waters allegedly belonging to Pasacao.
    • The municipalities agreed to refer the dispute to the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur for decision.
    • The Provincial Board referred the matter to a commissioner for investigation.
    • After submission of the commissioner’s report dated January 2, 1953, the Provincial Board approved Resolution No. 57 on February 13, 1954, awarding the disputed area to Libmanan.
  • Civil action for recovery of possession
    • On April 5, 1954, Libmanan filed an ordinary civil action (Civil Case No. 2631) in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against Pasacao for recovery of possession of the municipal waters awarded to Libmanan under Resolution No. 57.
  • Pasacao’s petition for certiorari
    • While the civil case was pending trial, Pasacao filed on March 21, 1961 a petition for certiorari against Libmanan and the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur seeking annulment of Resolution No. 57.
    • Pasacao alleged that the Provincial Board enacted the resolution with grave abuse of discretion on these grounds:
      • Pasacao was not informed of the commissioner’s report and was not given a hearing before the resolution was passed.
      • The resolution did not have the concurrence of the Provincial Governor; it had only the concurrence of two members of the Provincial Board.
      • The commissioner’s report was actually in favor of Pasacao.
  • Proceedings on the petition and appeal
    • The respondents answered the petition.
    • Libm...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Whether the petition for certiorari could prosper to annul Resolution No. 57 issued by the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur.
    • Whether the alleged lack of prior notice to Pasacao of the commissioner’s report, and the lack of a hearing before passage, constituted grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari.
    • Whether certiorari was a proper remedy in light of the statutory scheme under Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the availability of appeal to the proper authority.
    • Whether the petition was barred by laches due to the long delay.
    • Whether the Provincial Board’s resolution was void for lack of concurrence of the Provincial Governor.
    • Whether the Provincial Board’s alleged failure to follow the commissioner’s recommendation warranted annulment of the resolution through certiorari.
    • Whether the absence of the Provincial Governor invalidated the Provincia...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.