G.R. No. 234228 - Sinag et al. vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Batangas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234228)

Background Facts: The RPT Dispute and the Barangay Abolition Sequence

The controversy traced its roots to a dispute over barangay shares in RPT. Brgy. San Rafael issued a resolution requesting the Municipal Treasurer of Calaca to withhold PHP 41,435,765.19 as its share in RPT collected from FELS Energy Living Stone, Incorporated. Petitioners, however, maintained that the collected RPT rightfully belonged to Brgy. Dacanlao, insisting that Brgy. San Rafael was abolished and merged with Brgy. Dacanlao.

Petitioners’ positions were anchored on legislative and electoral events initiated by Ordinance No. 5. On June 23, 1997, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas enacted Ordinance No. 5, declaring the abolition of Brgy. San Rafael and its merger with Brgy. Dacanlao, and instructing the COMELEC and concerned agencies to comply with mandatory requirements under the Local Government Code (LGC). To implement the planned abolition, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2987 to conduct a plebiscite on February 28, 1998.

Early Judicial History: RTC Refusal of TRO, the Supreme Court Proceedings, and RTC Civil Case No. 3442

Residents and officials of Brgy. San Rafael challenged Ordinance No. 5 by filing a petition for annulment with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) before Branch 11, Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas (RTC Branch 11), docketed as Civil Case No. 3442. On February 25, 1998, the RTC Branch 11 denied the TRO, reasoning that actions questioning a COMELEC act, resolution, or decision must be brought before the Court and not the RTC. The case was elevated via a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 132603.

In the same period, the COMELEC conducted the plebiscite on February 28, 1998, and the majority of voters ratified the abolition and merger. In G.R. No. 132603, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution dated March 10, 1998 directing the parties to maintain the status quo existing at the time of filing of the petition. On September 18, 2000, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision in G.R. No. 132603 upholding the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2987, characterizing its issuance as a ministerial duty enjoined by law. The Court ordered RTC Branch 11 to proceed with Civil Case No. 3442 and directed that the execution of the plebiscite results be deferred depending on the outcome of Civil Case No. 3442.

Following the Supreme Court directive, RTC Branch 9 of Balayan proceeded with Civil Case No. 3442 and, on November 15, 2006, dismissed the petition for annulment of Ordinance No. 5, finding that the petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and validity by incontrovertible evidence. The decision was later appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 88994.

Ordinance No. 2’s Enactment and the Second Challenge in RTC Civil Case No. 4877

While the CA appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 88994 was pending, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas later enacted the challenged Ordinance No. 2 as a response to the perceived continued existence of Brgy. San Rafael. On June 13, 2009, the Sangguniang Pambarangay of San Rafael adopted Resolution No. 29-09, requesting the Sanggunian to “reinstal” San Rafael as a barangay. In the Sanggunian’s 26th regular session on July 30, 2009, items in the order of business reflected consideration of a legal opinion request concerning the legality of withholding RPT funds contrary to **Sec. 271(d) of R.A. 7160 and also sought possible intervention to enforce that provision.

The matter was referred to relevant Sanggunian committees and was discussed during a joint committee hearing on August 4, 2009. A certification from the National Barangay Operations Office was presented explaining that Brgy. San Rafael was listed in the master list of barangays as of March 31, 2001, was abolished by Ordinance No. 5, but was reinstated pursuant to a later Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 132603 and a memorandum from the Department of Interior and Local Government dated February 12, 2001. The committee reports recommended passage of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 5 on the ground that the condition for its enactment—the reduction in the number of residents of Brgy. San Rafael below the minimum prescribed in the LGC—was no longer present.

During the 27th regular session on August 6, 2009, the Sanggunian, upon a motion to suspend its own rules, expressly exempted the proposed ordinance from the three-reading rule. On the same day, it enacted Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009, titled as an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 5 and merging Brgy. San Rafael with Brgy. Dacanlao. The Court later treated the assailed ordinance as repealing and revoking Ordinance No. 5.

On September 8, 2009, petitioners filed a petition to nullify Ordinance No. 2 before RTC Branch 9, docketed as Civil Case No. 4877, with prayer for a TRO. Petitioners argued, among others, that Ordinance No. 2 was void and unconstitutional for failure to observe (i) the three-reading rule and publication requirements; (ii) a plebiscite approval requirement; (iii) having an intent to circumvent the outcome of CA-G.R. CV No. 88994; and (iv) alleged failure to support any revival of Brgy. San Rafael with data from the NSO/PSA.

Interim Orders: TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction in Civil Case No. 4877

Respondents in Civil Case No. 4877 filed answers defending the ordinance as an exercise of plenary legislative power of the Sanggunian, including authority to repeal its own ordinances. They also argued that since the issue on the validity of Ordinance No. 5 was still pending before the CA, Brgy. San Rafael was not yet abolished. They further contended that there was no actual division of barangays because the merger did not materialize.

On September 9, 2009, Executive Judge Cristino E. Judit, RTC Branch 10, issued a TRO against implementation of Ordinance No. 2. The CA, on March 9, 2010, later dismissed CA-G.R. CV No. 88994 as moot and academic based on enactment of Ordinance No. 2, describing Ordinance No. 2 as “virtually repealing” Ordinance No. 5 and reinstating San Rafael as a separate barangay.

Returning to Civil Case No. 4877, RTC Branch 9 granted a writ of preliminary injunction on December 2, 2010, and later issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated January 26, 2011, restraining alteration or modification of RPT records and restraining release of Brgy. San Rafael’s supposed RPT share.

Trial Court’s Judgment on the Pleadings and Subsequent Dismissal

Petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings after respondents allegedly failed to tender issues and even admitted material allegations. On October 14, 2013, RTC Branch 9 granted the motion and ruled that, because material allegations were not specifically denied as required, they were deemed admitted. Even so, the RTC ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that Ordinance No. 2 lacked merit because Ordinance No. 5 had never materialized into a legally effective abolition: the Court found that Brgy. San Rafael had continuous corporate existence and duly elected barangay officials recognized by COMELEC. The RTC also relied on testimony that no disenfranchisement had taken place.

The RTC concluded that the requirements of plebiscite and publication did not apply to Ordinance No. 2 because it purportedly did not create a new entity or divide Barangay Dacanlao. It added that Ordinance No. 2 enjoyed the presumption of validity and regularity.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which RTC Branch 9 denied on December 10, 2014, maintaining the same reasoning, including its view that Ordinance No. 5 never materialized and that respondents could invoke the presumption of regularity for enacted ordinances.

CA Dismissal for Improper Remedy

Petitioners appealed to the CA by notice of appeal under Rule 41. The CA dismissed the appeal on October 26, 2016, later denying reconsideration in the August 16, 2017 Resolution. The CA held that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. It ruled that because the appeal involved only questions of law and no genuine factual controversy, the proper recourse should have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court, instead of an appeal under Rule 41 to the CA.

The CA reasoned that no dispute existed as to material facts and that evaluation of evidence would not be necessary. It further rejected petitioners’ reliance on “judicial admissions” as a basis for treating the case as purely legal.

Core Issues Raised on Certiorari

Petitioners assigned as errors: first, the CA’s dismissal for improper remedy; second, the RTC’s alleged ignoring of abolition of Brgy. San Rafael by Ordinance No. 5; third, the RTC’s alleged refusal to apply constitutional and statutory requirements for creation of a barangay in enacting Ordinance No. 2; and fourth, the RTC’s purported upholding of the ordinance despite admitted irregularities in its enactment.

Petitioners emphasized that the ordinance itself—not its actual implementation—caused the legal effects of abolition. They also argued that Ordinance No. 5 had been sustained and that its ruling had become final when CA-G.R. CV No. 88994 was dismissed. They further contended that Brgy. San Rafael could not be “re-created” due to failure to meet the minimum population requirement. They also reiterated specific alleged irregularities in the passage of Ordinance No. 2, including suspension of the three-reading rule allegedly without authority, and non-compliance with publication, plebiscite, and population certification requirements.

Supreme Court’s Analysis: Nature of the Issues and Remedy

The Supreme Court first addressed the threshold question of remedy: whether petitioners’ appeal to the CA via Rule 41 was improper. The Court held that the classification of the controversy—questions of fact versus pure questions of law—was pivotal.

Relying on Olave v. Mistas, the Court reiterated that a question of fact conc

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234228)

The petitioners, identified as former officials and residents of Barangay Dacanlao, Calaca, Batangas, sought review by certiorari to reverse the Court of Appeals (CA) decision and resolution that dismissed their appeal on the ground of an improper remedy.
The respondents were the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Batangas, the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Calaca, Batangas, and Barangay San Rafael, Calaca, Batangas.
The controversy originated in competing claims over the allocation and release of barangay shares in real property taxes (RPT) collected from FELS Energy Living Stone, Incorporated.
The petitioners’ core theory was that Barangay San Rafael had been legally abolished through Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ordinance No. 05, series of 1997, merged with Barangay Dacanlao, and that subsequent efforts to reinstate San Rafael through Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009 were void for constitutional and statutory noncompliance.
The Court ultimately granted the petition, reversed the CA, and declared Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009 void.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioners filed an appeal from an adverse ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Balayan, Batangas in Civil Case No. 4877, which had dismissed their challenge to Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009.
The CA dismissed the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 104369 because the petitioners allegedly availed of the wrong remedy by filing under Rule 41, while the CA viewed the controversy as involving pure questions of law that should have been brought by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 directly to the Court.
The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on August 16, 2017.
The petitioners then filed an Appeal by Certiorari seeking reversal of both the October 26, 2016 CA decision and the August 16, 2017 CA resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

The CA proceedings and trial court proceedings revolved around the legal status of Barangay San Rafael and its entitlement to RPT shares.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas had enacted Ordinance No. 05, series of 1997, declaring the abolition of Barangay San Rafael and its merger with Barangay Dacanlao, subject to mandatory constitutional requirements and plebiscite implementation steps.
Petitioners contended that the abolition of San Rafael was legally and effectively carried through as a result of a plebiscite, and that RPT shares should therefore belong to Brgy. Dacanlao.
Respondents relied on the enactment of Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009, which repealed and revoked Ordinance No. 05, series of 1997, and which they asserted restored San Rafael’s barangay status.
The petitioners challenged Ordinance No. 2 on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularities in legislative process and noncompliance with requirements for barangay creation/division/abolition, particularly plebiscite, population thresholds, and publication/posting.
Petitioners also argued that factual circumstances surrounding the legislative enactment of Ordinance No. 2 were not merely matters of law but involved disputed factual allegations, including whether the ordinance had been properly calendared and subjected to required readings.

Earlier Barangay Abolition Saga

Ordinance No. 05, series of 1997 declared the abolition of Barangay San Rafael and directed the COMELEC and other agencies to effect the mandatory requirements under the Local Government Code.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 set rules and regulations for the conduct of a plebiscite on February 28, 1998 to implement Ordinance No. 5.
Residents and officials of Barangay San Rafael filed a petition before RTC Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas, docketed as Civil Case No. 3442, seeking annulment and a TRO.
The RTC Branch 11 denied the TRO for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that actions questioning COMELEC acts, resolutions, or decisions must be brought before the Court.
The case reached the Court as G.R. No. 132603, and the Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo pending resolution.
In G.R. No. 132603, the Court later ruled that the COMELEC’s issuance of the implementing resolution was a ministerial duty and directed the RTC Branch 11 to proceed with the Civil Case, while deferring the execution of the plebiscite’s results depending on the outcome of Civil Case No. 3442.
The RTC Branch 11 in Civil Case No. 3442 dismissed the petition for annulment of Ordinance No. 5, holding that petitioners had failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and validity.
The petitioners appealed to the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 88994, but the CA dismissed the appeal as moot and academic due to the enactment of Ordinance No. 2, treating it as “virtually repealing” Ordinance No. 5.

Enactment of Ordinance No. 002

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas acted on Resolution No. 29-09 of Barangay San Rafael requesting legal opinion and intervention regarding alleged withholding of RPT funds, and this matter was routed to multiple sanggunian committees.
A certification was presented in committee proceedings explaining that San Rafael appeared in the master list of barangays as of March 31, 2001, was abolished under Ordinance No. 5, and was reinstated due to a Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 132603 and a memorandum from the Department of the Interior and Local Government.
The committees recommended passage of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 5, reasoning that the condition underlying Ordinance No. 5’s enactment—reduction in population below the statutory minimum—no longer existed.
During the 27th Regular Session of the sanggunian, members moved for suspension of rules to exempt the proposed ordinance from the three-reading rule, and the sanggunian suspended its own rules to exempt the proposed ordinance.
On August 6, 2009, the sanggunian enacted Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009, entitled as an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 05, series of 1997 abolishing San Rafael and merging it with Dacanlao.
The ordinance contained a provision repealing and revoking Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ordinance No. 05, Series of 1997, and mandated the provincial assessor to reconcile RPT and property records accordingly.

RTC and CA Rulings

In Civil Case No. 4877, petitioners sought nullification of Ordinance No. 2 and obtained a writ of preliminary injunction restraining alteration or modification of RPT records and release of San Rafael’s claimed RPT share.
Petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that the sanggunian respondents failed to tender genuine issues and even admitted material allegations.
The RTC Branch 9 granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, deeming material allegations admitted for failure to specifically deny them as required by the Rules.
Despite granting judgment on the pleadings, the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit, reasoning that Ordinance No. 5 never materialized, and that San Rafael continuously operated as a barangay with duly elected officials.
The RTC held that requirements of plebiscite and publication did not apply to Ordinance No. 2 because it did not create a new entity nor divide a barangay, but instead allegedly recognized San Rafael’s continued existence.
The CA dismissed petitioners’ appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 104369 for being the wrong mode of appeal, holding that since only questions of law were involved, Rule 45 was the proper remedy rather than Rule 41.

Issues Presented

The petitioners questioned whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the case for improper remedy.
The petitioners challenged the RTC’s ruling that Ordinance No. 5’s abolition effects were not implemented and therefore should be treated as nonexistent for purposes of assessing Ordinance No. 2.
The petitioners argued that the RTC erred in refusing to apply constitutional and statutory requirements for creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of barangays when assessing the validity of Ordinance No. 2.
The petitioners asserted that Ordinance No. 2 was constitutionally and statutorily infirm due to alleged irregularities in enactment and patent noncompliance with required requisites.
The petitioners also alleged that the trial court improperly treated factual disputes as resolved by presumptions, contrary to the pleadings and record.
Respondents raised a procedural defense that petitioners’ recourse was filed out of time and that an erroneous appeal did not toll the prescriptive period for the correct remedy.

Proper Remedy Under Rules

The Court treated the threshold question as dependent on whether the issues before the CA involved questions of fact or pure questions of law.
The Court reiterated the distinction that a question of fact exists when there is doubt about the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, while a question of law exists when there is doubt about the meaning or application of law to a state of facts.
The Court found that petitioners ha