Title
Municipality of Isabel, Leyte vs. Municipality of Merida, Leyte
Case
G.R. No. 216092
Decision Date
Dec 9, 2020
A boundary dispute between Isabel and Merida over 162 hectares was resolved in favor of Merida, affirming the 1947 monuments near Doldol Creek as the true boundary.
boundary dispute
validity of boundary monuments
boundary markers

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216092)

Factual Background

The Municipality of Isabel was created by R.A. No. 191, enacted June 22, 1947, and formalized by Presidential Proclamation No. 49 on January 15, 1948, by which eight barrios were separated from Merida to constitute the new municipality. At the time of the separation, municipal boundary monuments were placed to mark the line between the two municipalities. Two monuments placed along a dead creek called Doldol are central to this dispute: a shoreward monument thirty meters from the highway that was later lost, and another near an old doldol tree. In 1981 the Isabel local government installed new monuments and placed Municipal Boundary Monument No. 5 (MBM No. 5) along the Benabaye River, which Merida alleges altered the boundary and produced a disputed tract of 162.3603 hectares now claimed by both municipalities.

Initial Local Actions and Contentions

Various acts by local actors aggravated the dispute, including the erection of a welcome monument by residents of Isabel in 1988 and a waiting shed by barangay Apale, Isabel, as well as highway clearing conducted by the Isabel LGU within the contested area. Barangay Benabaye officials requested assistance from the Merida Sangguniang Bayan, which prompted the formation of a fact-finding committee that reported the existence of the old boundary monuments and recommended installation of replacement monuments for those lost. The municipal councils of Merida and Isabel separately resolved to submit the dispute to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte for adjudication.

Proceedings Before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte unanimously adopted the findings of its Committee on Boundary Disputes and resolved that the true boundary between Merida and Isabel is the line planted along Doldol Creek near the ancient doldol tree and the highway. The provincial resolution ordered removal of Isabel’s MBM No. 5 and restoration of a shoreward monument, reasoning that R.A. No. 191 enumerated the barrios composing Isabel and did not include Benabaye, that cadastral and barangay boundary maps supported Merida’s claim, and that testimonial evidence, including that of Isabel’s first mayor, Galicano Ruiz, corroborated the Doldol Creek demarcation.

Trial Court Proceedings

Isabel appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which, in a decision dated September 29, 2009, reversed the provincial board’s resolution and declared the 162.3603-hectare tract to belong to Isabel. The RTC concluded that the true boundary between barangay Apale, Isabel, and barangay Benabaye, Merida, was the Benabaye River and gave greater weight to the testimony of three elderly witnesses produced by Isabel and to an ocular inspection that evidenced MBM No. 5 and its apparent compliance with surveying standards. The RTC discounted Merida’s testimony as hearsay and declined to treat tax declarations as decisive because they referred to conditions after 1948. Merida filed a motion for new trial asserting that a 1947 monument near the old doldol tree had been unearthed only after the RTC rendered judgment; the RTC denied the motion on the ground that photographs of the monument had already been in the record and that, exercising appellate jurisdiction, the court could not grant a new trial but could remand.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and reinstated the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution. The CA held that the proper mode of appeal was via Rule 42 for RTC appellate decisions and found the provincial board’s determination more persuasive. The appellate court assigned limited weight to the tax declarations tendered by Isabel, reasoning that municipal taxation presupposes territorial jurisdiction and that Isabel failed to show a continuous history of taxation over the area since 1948. The CA also noted the residency of several barangay Benabaye elective officials within the disputed area as supportive of Merida’s claim. On the core evidentiary contest, the CA favored the 1947 Doldol Creek monuments over Isabel’s MBM No. 5 because the former were contemporaneous with the creation of Isabel, there existed photographic and testimonial evidence of their existence and location, and the municipal charter must control where the charter provides specific source territory without metes and bounds.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution adjudicating the boundary in favor of Merida.

Parties' Contentions

Isabel contended that the monument near the ancient doldol tree was never proven because it was not inspected by the courts and that the preponderance of evidence showed the disputed area belonged to barangay Apale by virtue of MBM No. 5 and supporting resident affidavits, tax declarations, and cadastral maps. Merida maintained that the 1947 monuments were the true and original markers installed contemporaneously with Isabel’s creation, that MBM No. 5 improperly altered the boundary, and that evidence including committee reports, photographs, and sworn statements supported the recovery and location of the 1947 marker.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the August 20, 2014 Decision and the November 17, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05255. The Court held that the appellate court did not err in reinstating the provincial board’s adjudication favoring Merida.

Legal Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that Article X, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code restrict substantive alteration of local government unit boundaries to measures consistent with statutory criteria and subject to plebiscite approval. The Court reiterated established precedent that tribunals resolving LGU boundary disputes have the limited function of making factual determinations of the actual boundary line in accordance with the statute creating the LGUs, and that municipal charters and contemporaneous evidence of delimitation control where charters enumerate source territory without metes and bounds. The Court applied this framework to give primacy to evidence that was contemporaneous with the creation of Isabel, notably the Doldol Creek monuments installed in 1947, over monuments or surveying standards adopted decades later.

Evidentiary Assessment

The Court found significant the testimony of Galicano N. Ruiz, Isabel’s first mayor, who identified the shoreward and doldol tree monuments and described their installation. The Court deemed that testimony reliable because Mayor Ruiz spoke from contemporaneous knowledge and expressly acknowledged limits to binding current officials. The Court also accepted the photographic and testimonial evidence establishing that the doldol monument had existed and had been located and unearthed after the RTC decision. The Court applied principles from the 1947 Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands to conclude that a lost corner may nonetheless be extant or obliterated rather than lost if its position can be satisfactorily recovered by testimony and collateral evidence; Merida had met that standard. Conversely, the Court gave less weight to Isabel’s MBM No. 5 because it relied on surveying regulations not contemporaneous with Isabel’s foundation and thus could not supplant monuments placed at the time of creation.

Statutory Construction and Jurisprudential Precedents

The Court invoked the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius as applied in Municipality of Nu

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms