Title
Sinag et al. vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Batangas
Case
G.R. No. 234228
Decision Date
Feb 25, 2025
Residents of Barangay Dacanlao contested Ordinance No. 2 reinstating Barangay San Rafael, claiming it failed to meet urban population and plebiscite requirements, leading the Supreme Court to declare Ordinance No. 2 void for lack of compliance with legal prerequisites.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 196870)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of the Case
    • Petitioners Justo Q. Sinag et al., former officials and residents of Barangay Dacanlao, Calaca, Batangas.
    • Respondents include the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, the Offices of the Provincial Assessor, Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, the Municipal Treasurer of Calaca, and Barangay San Rafael, Calaca.
    • The case is an appeal challenging the validity of Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009, which repealed Ordinance No. 05, s. 1997—the ordinance abolishing Barangay San Rafael and merging it with Barangay Dacanlao.
  • Background and Key Events
    • On June 23, 1997, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas enacted Ordinance No. 05 abolishing Barangay San Rafael and merging it with Barangay Dacanlao, including directives for a plebiscite.
    • COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 was issued to conduct a plebiscite on February 28, 1998.
    • Opposition from Barangay San Rafael residents and officials led to petition for annulment and a TRO filed before RTC Branch 11, which was denied due to lack of jurisdiction.
    • The case elevated to the Supreme Court via G.R. No. 132603. The plebiscite was conducted and ratified the abolition and merger.
    • The Supreme Court issued a resolution maintaining status quo and later ruled that COMELEC’s plebiscite preparation was ministerial and directed RTC to proceed on annulment case.
    • RTC Branch 9 upheld validity of Ordinance No. 05 on November 15, 2006.
    • Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Ordinance No. 002 in 2009 repealing Ordinance No. 05, effectively reinstating Barangay San Rafael.
    • Sinag et al. filed petition before RTC Branch 9 to nullify Ordinance No. 002 citing unconstitutional enactment for lack of plebiscite, disregard of three-reading and publication rules, and failure to meet population requirements.
    • RTC Branch 9 granted motion for judgment on the pleadings but dismissed the petition, ruling Ordinance No. 05 was never implemented, Barangay San Rafael continued its corporate existence, and Ordinance No. 002 validly repealed Ordinance No. 05.
    • The CA dismissed petitioners’ appeal for improper remedy — holding issues involved pure questions of law and should have been brought by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
  • Issues Raised on Appeal
    • Whether CA erred in ruling appeal under Rule 41 was improper.
    • Whether RTC erred in ignoring Ordinance No. 05’s abolition of Barangay San Rafael.
    • Whether RTC erred in refusing to apply constitutional and statutory requirements for barangay creation in Ordinance No. 002.
    • Whether RTC erred in upholding validity of Ordinance No. 002 despite procedural irregularities.

Issues:

  • Was the appeal to the CA under Rule 41 the proper remedy, or should a petition for review under Rule 45 be the correct recourse?
  • Did the RTC err in holding that the abolition and merger of Barangay San Rafael under Ordinance No. 05 never materialized, allowing Barangay San Rafael to continue as a separate LGU?
  • Was Ordinance No. 002 validly enacted, complying with constitutional and statutory requirements including population minimums and plebiscite approval?
  • Did the enactment of Ordinance No. 002 observe procedural requirements such as the three-reading rule and publication?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms