Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21788)
Factual Background
The municipalities agreed to submit their dispute to the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur for decision. The Board referred the matter to a commissioner for investigation. After the commissioner submitted his report dated January 2, 1953, the Provincial Board, on February 13, 1954, approved Resolution No. 57, awarding the disputed area to the Municipality of Libmanan.
On April 5, 1954, Libmanan filed an ordinary civil action (Civil Case No. 2631) in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur seeking recovery of possession of the municipal waters awarded to it by virtue of Resolution No. 57. While that civil action was pending trial, Pasacao, on March 21, 1961, instituted a separate proceeding in the Court of First Instance by filing a petition for certiorari against Libmanan and the Provincial Board to annul Resolution No. 57.
Pasacao’s Petition for Certiorari and Grounds Alleged
Pasacao alleged that Resolution No. 57 was enacted with grave abuse of discretion, advancing three principal arguments: first, that Pasacao had not been informed of the commissioner’s report and had not been given a hearing before the resolution was passed; second, that the resolution lacked the concurrence of the Provincial Governor and had been approved only by two members of the Provincial Board; and third, that the commissioner’s report was actually in favor of Pasacao.
Libmanan and the Provincial Board answered the petition. Libmanan later filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted in an order dated January 10, 1963. Pasacao moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Pasacao then elevated the case to the Supreme Court on appeal.
Governing Law on Municipal Boundary Disputes
The Court noted that the parties agreed on the controlling legal framework: Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provided that disputes as to jurisdiction of municipal governments over places or barrios are decided by the provincial boards after an investigation at which the municipalities concerned are duly heard. The section further stated that from the provincial board’s decision, an appeal could be taken by the aggrieved municipality to the Secretary of Interior (now the Office of the Executive Secretary), whose decision would be final.
The Trial Court’s Dismissal and the Supreme Court’s Disposition
The Court sustained the trial court’s dismissal. It held that none of Pasacao’s asserted grounds justified certiorari, and that the petition was procedurally barred.
Resolution Without Prior Disclosure of the Commissioner’s Report
On Pasacao’s first allegation, the Court ruled that the Provincial Board’s approval of the resolution without first informing Pasacao of the commissioner’s report was not grave abuse of discretion. The Court treated the omission as at most a mere irregularity. Such an irregularity, the Court explained, could have been raised by requesting the Board to reconsider its action. If reconsideration were denied, the proper remedy was to appeal to the competent authority under Section 2167.
The Court further emphasized that Pasacao was not without notice in any event. When Libmanan filed Civil Case No. 2631 on April 5, 1954, less than two months after the approval of Resolution No. 57, Pasacao allegedly became aware of the resolution because it was invoked in the complaint as the basis for Libmanan’s right of possession. A copy of the resolution was later presented in evidence in May 1955. The Court thus concluded that Pasacao should have taken the steps required to perfect an appeal under Section 2167.
Certiorari as an Improper Substitute for Appeal or Defense
The Court then addressed Pasacao’s choice of remedy. It held that certiorari was not a proper substitute for an available appeal or for an action or defense that could have been raised. Certiorari, the Court explained, is justified only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
On the record, the Court found that Pasacao had available remedies. If Pasacao believed Resolution No. 57 was voidable or void, it should have filed the corresponding action at the appropriate time, or it should have raised the alleged nullity as a defense in the possession suit (Civil Case No. 2631) initiated by Libmanan.
Laches as an Additional Bar
The Court added that the timing of Pasacao’s certiorari petition further defeated the proceeding. It held that the petition was not filed until after the lapse of more than six years from when the issue should have been brought up, and that laches constituted an additional obstacle to the petition.
The Provincial Governor’s Concurrence Issue
Pasacao’s second argument was that Resolution No. 57 was invalid because it allegedly lacked the concurrence of the Provincial Governor. The Court rejected this contention for lack of merit on the facts. It appeared that when the resolution was approved, the Provincial Governor was absent on official business. One of the two Provincial Board members acted as presiding officer during the session. The Court held that the Governor’s failure to thereafter challenge the authority of the Board member who presided effectively amounted to ratification of the action taken.
The Court further stated that Pasacao had not cited any law supporting the suggestion that the Provincial Board was rendered powerless to carry on its corporate functions whenever the Provincial Governor was absent.
Whether the Commissioner’s Recommendation Was Followed
Pasacao’s final submission alleged that the Provincial Board did not follow the commissioner’s recommendation. The Court held that this argument was beside the point. It reasoned that the decision remained with the Provincial Board, subject only to th
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-21788)
- The case involved a dispute between the municipalities of Pasacao and Libmanan, both located in the province of Camarines Sur, regarding the extent of their respective municipal waters along the Ragay Gulf.
- The controversy arose when Libmanan began claiming a portion of the marine waters allegedly belonging to Pasacao.
- The parties initially agreed to submit the dispute to the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur for settlement.
- The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court through an appeal from an order dismissing Pasacao’s petition for certiorari.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The Municipality of Pasacao was the petitioner-appellant and sought annulment of a provincial resolution through certiorari.
- The Provincial Board of Camarines Sur and The Municipality of Libmanan were the respondents-appellants.
- After the provincial resolution awarded the disputed area to Libmanan, Libmanan filed ordinary civil action (Civil Case No. 2631) against Pasacao in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for recovery of possession.
- While the civil case was still pending, Pasacao filed a petition for certiorari against Libmanan and the Provincial Board to annul Resolution No. 57.
- The trial court dismissed the certiorari petition in an order dated January 10, 1963.
- The Municipality of Pasacao moved to reconsider the dismissal, but the motion was denied, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Factual Allegations
- The provincial dispute concerned municipal boundary over marine waters, with the municipalities separated on land by a river that also divided their marine waters.
- In 1952, Libmanan asserted a claim over part of the marine waters allegedly belonging to Pasacao.
- The Provincial Board referred the matter to a commissioner for investigation and later approved Resolution No. 57 awarding the disputed area to Libmanan.
- Pasacao alleged procedural and substantive defects in the provincial resolution, specifically that:
- it 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, allegedly being approved only by two board members;
- the commissioner’s report actually favored Pasacao.
- Pasacao filed its certiorari petition on March 21, 1961, after the civil action for possession had been filed on April 5, 1954 and after substantial time had elapsed from the board’s approval of Resolution No. 57 on February 13, 1954.
Statutory Framework
- The parties agreed that Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code governed municipal boundary disputes between municipalities.
- Section 2167 required that disputes as to jurisdiction of municipal governments be decided by the provincial boards, after an investigation in which the concerned municipalities shall be duly heard.
- Under Section 2167, the decision of the provincial board was appealable by the aggrieved municipality to the Secretary of Interior (now the Office of the Executive Secretary), and that decision was final.
- The Supreme Court treated the certiorari petition as an improper procedural vehicle when Section 2167 provided an adequate and specific appeal remedy.
Issues Raised
- The principal issue concerned whether the provincial board’s approval of Resolution No. 57 could be annulled via certiorari.
- The petition also raised whether alleged procedural defects and alleged governance issues rendered the resolution:
- void for lack of proper notice and hearing concerning the commissioner’s report;
- void for lack of concurrence of the Provincial Governor; and
- void for failure to follow the commissioner’s recommendation.
- The case also implicated whether the petition for certiorari was barred by the availability of other remedies and by laches due to the long delay in filing.
Contentions of the Parties
- Pasacao contended that the provincial board acted with grave abuse of discretion because it allegedly:
- was not informed of the commissioner’s report and was not given a hearing before the resolution was passed;
- lacked th