Title
Municipality of Sogod vs. Rosal
Case
G.R. No. 38204
Decision Date
Sep 24, 1991
Boundary dispute between Bontoc and Sogod over jurisdiction of barrios; trial court dismissed cases, citing Provincial Board's authority under law; SC upheld, recommending legislative resolution.
boundary dispute
municipalities
lack of jurisdiction

Case Summary (G.R. No. 38204)

Factual Background

Republic Act No. 522 of June 15, 1950 created the municipality of Bontoc and enumerated the barrios composing it. A boundary dispute arose when THE MUNICIPALITY OF SOGOD claimed that additional barrios lay within its jurisdiction. The Provincial Board of Leyte issued Resolution No. 617 on June 17, 1952 and caused a plebiscite on August 1, 1952, which showed more votes in favor of Sogod for certain barrios. On April 4, 1959 the Provincial Board recommended amendments to RA 522 and proposed Granada Creek as the boundary. President Garcia promulgated Executive Order No. 368 on December 28, 1959 to reconstitute barrios and specify the boundary, but on July 14, 1960 the Executive Secretary directed suspension of implementation and ordered a plebiscite to determine the true wishes of inhabitants. The Provincial Board of Southern Leyte passed Resolution No. 62 on July 18, 1960, suspending implementation and creating a committee to hold the plebiscite and settle the dispute.

Procedural History

On June 24, 1970 THE MUNICIPALITY OF SOGOD filed Civil Case No. R-1706 for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte to enjoin the Provincial Board and governor from taking cognizance of the boundary dispute and to enjoin THE MUNICIPALITY OF BONTOC from exercising jurisdiction over specified barrios. On December 7, 1970 Sogod filed Civil Case No. R-1707 for recovery of taxes with receivership, alleging Bontoc collected taxes from barrios belonging to Sogod and praying for one-half of taxes collected from 1950 to 1959. The trial court dismissed both cases by orders dated August 31, 1973 and denied motions for reconsideration on December 17, 1973. Petitioner filed two separate petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court in this Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-38204 and G.R. No. L-38205.

Issue Presented

The common issue presented was whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. R-1706 and Civil Case No. R-1707 for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner alleged that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the actions and thereby refused to assume jurisdiction to resolve the municipal boundary and tax controversies. In Civil Case No. R-1707 petitioner specifically contended that THE MUNICIPALITY OF BONTOC unlawfully exercised jurisdiction over ten barrios of Sogod and must account for taxes collected from 1950 to 1959.

Trial Court Rulings

The trial court dismissed Civil Case No. R-1706 on August 31, 1973 for lack of jurisdiction and denied reconsideration on December 17, 1973. The court dismissed Civil Case No. R-1707 on the ground that the right to collect taxes depended on determination of the boundary question in R-1706, which had been dismissed, and noted that a plebiscite on the boundary issue had not yet been conducted. The trial court denied reconsideration of R-1707 on December 17, 1973.

Applicable Law on Jurisdiction

The Court reiterated that jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause and that it is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It applied the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of commencement of the action. At the time petitioner filed the civil actions in 1970, the controlling laws were Republic Act No. 522, Republic Act No. 3590 (revising Republic Act No. 2370), and Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. Republic Act No. 522 enumerated the barrios composing Bontoc and thus defined municipal jurisdiction in that area. Republic Act No. 3590 limited creation and alteration of barrios and boundaries to Acts of Congress or to the corresponding provincial board upon petition and recommendation. Section 2167 vested authority to decide disputes as to municipal jurisdiction in the provincial boards, with appeal to the Secretary of the Interior (now the Executive Secretary).

Jurisdictional Analysis Applied to the Case

The Court found that, under the laws in force when the actions commenced, the Provincial Board of Southern Leyte possessed the authority to investigate and decide the municipal boundary dispute, and that the Executive Department could take administrative steps to expedite settlement. The Court cited prior decisions recognizing that fixing common boundaries may partake of administrative action. Because the Provincial Board had not completed the plebiscite or rendered a decision when petitioner filed suit in 1970, the Court held that Sogod should have pursued administrative remedies, including appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, rather than seek judicial relief in the trial court.

Supreme Court's Ruling and Reasoning

The Court concluded that the trial court correctly dismissed Civil Case No. R-1706 and Civil Case No. R-1707 for want of jurisdiction. The Court held that the provincial board’s authority to resolve municipal boundary disputes, and the administrative channels then available, deprived the trial court of power to determine the controversy at the time the actions were filed. The Court affirmed the trial court orders dated August 31, 1973 and December 17, 1973 in both G.R. No. L-38204 and G.R. No. L-38205.

Subsequent Observations and Legislative Referral

The Court observed that the controve

...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