Title
Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte vs. Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte
Case
G.R. No. 169435
Decision Date
Feb 27, 2008
A boundary dispute arose between Nueva Era and Marcos, with Marcos claiming part of Nueva Era's territory. Courts ruled Marcos was created solely from Dingras' barrios, excluding Nueva Era, affirming its boundaries.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169435)

Facts and Background of the Municipalities

– Nueva Era was created by Executive Order No. 66 (September 30, 1916), consolidating rancherias into a township with seat at Bugayong.
– Marcos was created by Republic Act No. 3753 (June 22, 1963), separating seven barrios of Dingras (Capariaan, Biding, Escoda, Culao, Alabaan, Ragas, Agunit) and defining its boundaries, including “on the East, by the Ilocos Norte–Mountain Province boundary.”
– Mountain Province then included present‐day Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao; post-1966 and 1995 statutes divided it into separate provinces.

Legal Basis for Creation and Boundaries

– RA 3753 expressly named only Dingras barrios as source territory—Nueva Era was not mentioned.
– Marcos interpreted “East by the Ilocos Norte–Mt. Province boundary” to extend its territory through central Nueva Era to the Ilocos Norte–Apayao line.
– Nueva Era asserted its ancestral domain status and invoked expressio unius est exclusio alterius to exclude its territory from Marcos.

Procedural History: Sangguniang Panlalawigan and RTC Decisions

– 1993: Marcos’ Sangguniang Bayan claimed 15,400 ha of Nueva Era (Barangay Sto. Niño) before the Provincial Board; Nueva Era opposed.
– March 29, 2000: Sangguniang Panlalawigan dismissed Marcos’ petition, declaring the disputed area part of Nueva Era.
– March 19, 2001: RTC Branch 12, Laoag City, affirmed the SP decision and dismissed Marcos’ appeal.

Court of Appeals Decision

– June 6, 2005: CA treated Marcos’ petition as certiorari and partially granted relief, extending Marcos’ eastern boundary to the Ilocos Norte–Kalinga-Apayao line (thereby annexing central Nueva Era) but denied Marcos’ claim to the detached northern portion of Barangay Sto. Niño, which remained with Nueva Era.

Issues on Mode of Appeal and Jurisdiction

  1. Whether the CA had jurisdiction to entertain Marcos’ appeal beyond the RTC under Section 119 of the Local Government Code (appeal from SP decision goes only to the RTC).
  2. Whether the eastern boundary of Marcos may be extended beyond Dingras’ boundary into Nueva Era territory.

Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

– 1987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 10: Creation or alteration of LGUs requires criteria established by law and plebiscite approval in affected units (prospective application).
– Local Government Code (RA 7160), Sec. 118(b)–119: Boundary disputes among municipalities are tried by the SP, appealable to the RTC.
– Judiciary Reorganization Act (B.P. 129, as amended) and Rule 42, Rules of Civil Procedure: CA has appellate jurisdiction over final RTC decisions on appeals.

Analysis on Jurisdiction and Statutory Construction

– Mode of Appeal: Though the LGC provides for SP→RTC appeal, B.P. 129 and Rule 42 expressly grant the CA authority to review RTC final decisions via petition for review on appeal; thus CA jurisdiction was proper without converting the matter to certiorari.
– Plebiscite Requirement: Marcos’ creation pre-dates the 1987 plebiscite requirement and the 1973 Constitution’s similar provision; such requirements apply prospectively and do not invalidate Marcos’ status or subsequent boundary interpretation.
– Legislative Intent and Expressio Unius: RA 3753’s express enumeration of Dingras barrios as Marcos’ territory excludes any part of Nueva Era. The ambiguous “eastern

    ...continue reading

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