Case Digest (G.R. No. 140474)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 140474)
Facts:
Municipality of Sta. Fe v. Municipality of Aritao, G.R. No. 140474, September 21, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.On October 16, 1980, Municipality of Sta. Fe (petitioner) filed Civil Case No. 2821 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28, for the determination of a boundary dispute involving the barangays of Bantinan and Canabuan against Municipality of Aritao (respondent). The case proceeded to trial and was near conclusion when the RTC, recognizing an oversight under existing law, ordered on December 9, 1988 the suspension of proceedings and referred the dispute to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Vizcaya for possible amicable settlement.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s Committee on Legal Affairs, Ordinances and Resolutions recommended adopting Provincial Board Resolution No. 64 (September 14, 1979), which had earlier adjudicated the contested barangays as part of respondent’s territory and enjoined petitioner from exercising governmental functions there. On November 13, 1989 the Sanggunian approved the Committee’s recommendation by Resolution No. 357 but nonetheless endorsed the boundary matter back to the RTC for further proceedings and to preserve the status quo pending finality.
Back in the RTC, respondent moved to consider Resolution No. 64 final and executory; the trial court denied that motion on February 12, 1991, ruling that the Provincial Board had exceeded its authority when no amicable settlement had been reached and that court proceedings should resume. Thereafter, on June 23, 1992 respondent moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the doctrine in Municipality of Sogod v. Rosal (G.R. Nos. 38204-5, Sept. 24, 1991) and the changed legal framework under the 1987 Constitution and the subsequently enacted Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991.
On August 27, 1992 the RTC granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the controversy had been overtaken by events—specifically, the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991—which vested primary jurisdiction over municipal boundary disputes in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan subject to the plebiscite and procedural regimen under the LGC. The trial court denied reconsideration, and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On September 30, 1999 the CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, reasoning that the LGC and the 1987 Constitution (as the latest expression of the people’s will) altered the scheme for resolving boundary disputes and that such changes could be given retroactive effect to pending cases. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, which issued the present decision on September 21, 2007.
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2821 for lack of jurisdiction proper when the RTC had obtained jurisdiction at the time the complaint was filed?
- Do the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 operate retroactively to vest original jurisdiction over municipal boundary disputes in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, thereby divesting the RTC of original jurisdiction over a case pending at the time of their enactment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)