Title
Source: Supreme Court
National Housing Authority vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems
Case
G.R. No. 142601
Decision Date
Oct 23, 2006
A boundary dispute between San Jose del Monte and Caloocan escalated to COSLAP, which ruled in favor of San Jose. The Supreme Court overturned COSLAP's decision, stating it lacked jurisdiction over LGU boundary disputes, which fall under the Local Government Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142601)

Background of the Dispute

Since 1968, a boundary dispute has existed between San Jose del Monte and Caloocan City. To address this ongoing issue, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Jose del Monte passed Resolution No. 20-02-94 on February 10, 1994, which recognized the official boundary between the two local government units. A subsequent resolution on August 8, 1995, further emphasized specific geographic positions and coordinates that delineate this boundary.

Findings from the DENR Survey

A survey commissioned by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in 1995 supported the boundary established by San Jose del Monte. The findings indicated that certain lots, particularly within Tala Estate, encroached on land identified for housing and resettlement by the NHA under Presidential Proclamation No. 843.

Complaint Filed Before COSLAP

Dissatisfied with DENR's findings, the Municipality of San Jose del Monte and several private property owners filed a complaint against the NHA at COSLAP. They claimed that the NHA's housing projects infringed upon their properties and sought damages. Notably, the City of Caloocan was not included as a respondent in this complaint.

COSLAP's Resolution and Subsequent Actions

On June 22, 1998, COSLAP ruled in favor of San Jose del Monte regarding the boundary dispute. When the NHA contested this ruling, it raised concerns about COSLAP's jurisdiction in boundary matters. Despite objections, COSLAP issued a writ of execution based on its resolution.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The NHA subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals claiming that COSLAP acted without jurisdiction. However, the appellate court dismissed the petition on the grounds of timeliness and procedural propriety, leading the NHA to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

Jurisdictional Analysis of COSLAP

The Supreme Court asserted that a judgment rendered by a quasi-judicial body acting without jurisdiction is void. It examined COSLAP's establishment under Executive Order No. 561 and found that COSLAP does not possess the authority to settle boundary disputes between local government units. Such disputes are governed by the Local Government Code, which explicitly designates the respective legislative councils of the local governments as the bodies responsible for settling boundary conflicts.

Conclusion on COSLAP's Authority

Since COSLAP

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.