Province of Antique vs. Calabocal

5/2/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 793

G.R. No. 209146. June 8, 2016.*

PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE and MUNICIPALITY OF
CALUYA, petitioners, vs. HON. RECTO A. CALABOCAL,
Judge-Designate, Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Roxas,
Oriental Mindoro, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO,
and MUNICIPALITY OF BULALACAO, respondents.
Local Government Units; Boundary Disputes; There is a

boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of the territorial
area of a Local Government Unit (LGU) is claimed by two (2) or
more LGUs.—A boundary dispute involving different local
government units is defined in the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code. Specifically,
Rule III, Article 15 states: RULE III Settlement of Boundary
Disputes ARTICLE 15. Definition and Policy.—There is a
boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of the
territorial area of an LGU is claimed by two or more
LGUs. Boundary disputes between or among LGUs shall, as
much as possible, be settled amicably. (Emphasis supplied) Based
on this definition, a boundary dispute may involve “a portion or
the whole” of a local government unit’s territorial area. Nothing in
this
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

14
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Province of Antique vs. Calabocal
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017928c0fc5e4a6c26ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
provision excludes a dispute over an island. So long as the

island is being claimed by different local government units, there
exists a boundary dispute. The allegations in the complaint filed
before the RTC point to a boundary dispute, as defined under the
Local Government Code.
Same; Same; Under the Local Government Code (LGC), “the
respective legislative councils of the contending local government
units (LGUs) jurisdiction over their boundary disputes.”—Having
established that the case involves a boundary dispute, the
procedure to resolve the same is that established under the Local
Government Code. Under the said law, “the respective legislative
councils of the contending local government units have
jurisdiction over their boundary disputes.” Sections 118 and 119
of the Local Government Code state: SECTION 118.
Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of Boundary Dispute.
—Boundary disputes between and among local government units
shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. To this end: (a)
Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more Barangays in the
same city or municipality shall be referred for settlement to the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned. (b)
Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities
within the same province shall be referred for settlement to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned. (c) Boundary disputes
involving municipalities or component cities of different
provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the
Sanggunians of the provinces concerned. (d) Boundary
disputes involving a component city or municipality on the one
hand and a highly urbanized city on the other, or two (2) or more
highly urbanized cities, shall be jointly referred for settlement to
the respective Sanggunians of the parties. (e) In the event the
Sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within sixty
(60) days from the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall
issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be
formally tried by the Sanggunian concerned which shall decide
the issue within sixty (60) days from the date of the certification
referred to above. SECTION 119. Appeal.—Within the time and
manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party may elevate
the decision of the Sanggunian concerned to the proper Regional
Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area in dispute. The
Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within one (1) year
from the filing thereof. Pending final resolution

15
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 15

of the disputed area prior to the dispute shall be maintained

and continued for all legal purposes.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari and Prohibition.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Roberto Q. Operiano for petitioners.
Kristine Grace L. Suarez for province of Oriental
Mindoro and Municipality of Bulalacao.
CARPIO,** J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order1 filed by the Province of
Antique and the Municipality of Caluya (petitioners)
against Judge Recto A. Calabocal (Judge Calabocal), Judge-
Designate of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas,
Oriental Mindoro, Branch 43, and the Province of Oriental
Mindoro and the Municipality of Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro (respondents).
The case before the Court stems from a dispute between
the Province of Antique and the Province of Oriental
Mindoro for “territorial jurisdiction, dominion, control and
administration”2 over Liwagao Island,3 a 114-hectare
island located between the two provinces.4 This dispute led
to Civil Case No. C-566, a petition for “Recovery and
Declaration of Political Jurisdiction/Dominion and
Mandamus”5 filed by respondents against petitioners
before the RTC of Roxas, Oriental Min-
_______________
** Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2353 dated
June 2, 2016.
1 Rollo, pp. 10-33. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id., at p. 39.
3 Also called Libago Island. Id., at p. 43.
4 Id.
5 Id., at pp. 38-59.

16

doro. Assailed in this petition are the Orders issued by

Judge Calabocal on 23 April 2013,6 denying petitioners’
affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction, and on 17 July
2013,7 denying their subsequent motion for
reconsideration.

The Facts

Based on the petition filed by respondents before the
RTC, sometime between the years 1978 and 1979, Dolores
Bago (Mayor Bago), then Mayor of the Municipality of
Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, agreed to lend the
administration of Liwagao Island to Oscar Lim (Mayor
Lim), then Mayor of the Municipality of Caluya,
Antique.8 The agreement was made orally and without
executing any formal documents to this effect. The
condition attached to the agreement was that the island
would be returned upon termination of either party’s terms
in office.
The terms of both mayors ended in 1987. Mayor Lim
allegedly returned Liwagao Island to the Municipality of
Bulalacao. However, the Municipality of Caluya continued
to exercise administration over the island.9
On 15 April 2002, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Oriental Mindoro passed a resolution confirming its
jurisdictional rights and dominion over Liwagao
Island.10 However, according to respondents, the
Municipality of Caluya and the Province of Antique
continued to claim and exercise authority over Liwagao
Island.11
Respondents claim that despite the fact that it is the
Province of Oriental Mindoro and the Municipality of
Bulalacao that provide government services to the island,
petitioners
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 34-35.

7 Id., at pp. 36-37.
8 Id., at p. 39.
9 Id., at p. 48.
10 Id., at p. 50.
11 Id., at pp. 50-51.

17
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 17

“continued collecting real property taxes” from

Liwagao’s inhabitants.12
On 20 February 2012, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Oriental Mindoro passed Resolution No. 1454-2012 entitled
Resolution Calling for the Conduct of a Joint Session
between the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of
Oriental Mindoro and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
the Province of Antique for the Settlement of Jurisdictional
Claim over the Island of Liwagao.13
Upon receiving a copy of Resolution No. 1454-2012, the
Vice Governor of Antique wrote the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro of her willingness to
conduct a joint session to settle the boundary dispute.
However, on 25 May 2012, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Antique issued Resolution No. 142-2012 informing
Oriental Mindoro that it was not amenable to any form of
settlement over the jurisdiction of Liwagao Island and
asserted that the same rightfully belongs to their
province.14
Thereafter, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental
Mindoro issued a resolution directing the Provincial Legal
Office to file the necessary legal action to claim Liwagao
Island.15
Thus, on 12 September 2012, respondents filed their
petition before the RTC of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.
On the other hand, in their Answer before the RTC,
petitioners claimed that “the maps of [NAMRIA] and
DENR show Liwagao Island to be part of Caluya,
Antique.”16 Petitioners asserted that “all national agencies
of the government have always considered the island to be
part of Caluya.” Likewise, the people living there have
always recognized Caluya’s juris-
_______________
12 Id., at p. 52.
13 Id., at p. 60.
14 Id., at p. 54.
15 Id.
16 Id., at p. 14.

18

diction over the island as evidenced by the fact that they

have “registered their births, paid real property taxes and
voted in Caluya, Antique.”17
In the same Answer, petitioners set up the defense of
lack of jurisdiction of the RTC. They argued that “under
Section 118, paragraph (c) of the Local Government Code,
jurisdiction over boundary disputes between municipalities
of different provinces is vested on the Sangguniang
Panlalawigans of the provinces involved.”18
The Orders of the RTC

The RTC issued the first of its assailed orders on 23
April 2013 ruling on the special and affirmative defenses
invoked by the Province of Antique and the Municipality of
Caluya. Specifically, petitioners argued that the case
involved a boundary dispute that should have first been
brought to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned for
settlement.19
The RTC disagreed:

The respondent claimed that the subject government
unit is a part of its territory. Clearly, the issue revolves and
gravitates on who between the petitioner and respondent is
the owner of sitio Liwagao, barangay Maasim, and not
merely a boundary dispute because both parties claim the
whole government unit of sitio Liwagao and not merely a
part thereof to constitute it as boundary dispute to fall
under Section 118, paragraph c of the Local Government
Code.
The respondent claims that it should have been brought
first to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concern (sic) for
settlement. The court is not in accord with such contention
because the Sanggunian of Antique already
_______________
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id., at p. 34.

19
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 19

issued Resolution No. 142-2012 dated May 25,

2012 to the effect that it categorically declared that
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique is not
amenable to any form of settlement on the alleged
dispute of jurisdiction or dominion over the Island of
Liwagao. Such resolution of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Antique absolutely slammed or
closed the door to any amicable settlement with the
petitioners. Hence, the court believes that it would be
an exercise in futility for the petitioners to agree with
respondents’ argument.
As correctly pointed out by Atty. Kristine Grace L.
Suarez in her memorandum, that there is no law
precluding a party to a case from availing of any legal
remedies available. In this case, the petitioners
logically opted to institute this case which is an action
for recovery and declaration of jurisdiction/dominion.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant affirmative defense of
lack of jurisdiction is hereby DENIED. x x x.20
\
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC
denied the motion in its second assailed Order of 17 July
2013, holding that:

x x x The real issue in this case is not a boundary
dispute between the petitioners and respondents but
whether or not the former can recover back what it
had lent to the latter. The respondents were just
trying to complicate the issue by making it appear
that it is a boundary dispute which it had already
closed the door for any settlement.
Since time immemorial, Liwagao Island was under
the peaceful and exclusive territorial and political
jurisdiction by the Municipality of Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro. In fact, voluminous documents clearly show
that Liwagao is within the Municipality of Bulalacao,
Oriental Mindoro. This alone strongly indicates that
the issue in this case is not a boundary dispute
because these documents indicate that Liwagao
Island is within the
_______________
20 Id., at pp. 34-35.

20

Municipality of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. If it

is true as claimed by the respondents that Liwagao
Island is within its territorial and political
jurisdiction, why would then Mayor Lim of Caluya,
Antique still need to secure the consent of the then
Mayor Bago of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro to
temporarily exercise jurisdiction over the Island of
Liwagao. To the mind of this court, this is an
admission on the part of the respondent that the
subject island is within the Municipality of Bulalacao,
Oriental Mindoro.21

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and TRO

Petitioners subsequently filed the present petition
praying for:

a) A temporary restraining order and writ of
preliminary injunction be immediately issued
enjoining all proceedings of the court a quo and of the
respondent judge during the pendency of the case;
b) A writ of certiorari be issued, reversing the
questioned Orders of the respondent judge dated
April [23], 2013 and July 17, 2013 in Civil Case No. C-
566, and dismissing Civil Case No. C-566; and
c) A writ of prohibition be issued permanently
enjoining respondent judge from taking cognizance of
this case[.]22
The Court, in a Resolution dated 14 October 2013,

issued a temporary restraining order “enjoining the
respondents, the RTC, Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental
Mindoro, their representatives, agents or other persons
acting on their behalf from further proceeding with the
enforcement of the Orders dated 23 April 2013 and 17 July

2013 of the RTC, Branch 43, Roxas,
_______________
21 Id., at p. 37.
22 Id., at p. 29.

21
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 21

Oriental Mindoro in Civil Case No. C-566 during the

pendency of the instant case.”23

Petitioners’ Arguments

In the case at bar, petitioners aver that, first, the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that the case does not
involve a boundary dispute.24 Petitioners insist that the
case involves a boundary dispute, which simply refers to
when “two entities disagree as to where the boundary
between them lies.”25 They further assert that “it does not
matter whether what is involved in said dispute is the
whole or only a part of a local government unit. What
determines whether there is a boundary dispute is that
there is disagreement as to whether the boundary lies
between two territories.”26
Second, petitioners assert that the RTC erred in
assuming jurisdiction over respondents’ petition because
“the Sangguniang Panlalawigans of both the provinces of
Antique and Oriental Mindoro, sitting jointly, have
primary, original and exclusive jurisdiction over this
boundary dispute.”27 They contend that under the Local
Government Code, “a boundary dispute between
municipalities of different provinces shall be referred first
for settlement to the sanggunians of the provinces jointly”
and if no settlement is reached, the case shall be jointly
tried by the sanggunians concerned.28 After trial, the
aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the RTC having
jurisdiction over the area.
Third, petitioners argue that the “RTC only has
jurisdiction over an appeal from the decision of the
Sangguniang
_______________
23 Id., at p. 78.
24 Id., at p. 16.
25 Id.
26 Id., at p. 17.
27 Id., at p. 18.
28 Id., at p. 19.

22

Panlalawigans in a boundary dispute in accordance with

Sec. 119 of the Local Government Code.” They aver that
the petition filed with the RTC was not an appeal but an
original complaint,29 which alleges that the parties
concerned failed to settle the dispute. It is clear, petitioners
claim, that “the respondents brought this action in the RTC
as a result of the failure of settlement between the parties,
not as an appeal from a decision of both the Sangguniang
Panlalawigans of Antique and Oriental Mindoro.”30
Lastly, the RTC “cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction
over [respondents’ petition] since there was no petition [for
the adjudication of the boundary dispute] that was filed
and decided by the Sangguniang Panlalawigans of Antique
and Oriental Mindoro.”31 Such petition should be in the
form of a resolution and filed with either of the two
sanggunians. Resolution No. 1454-2012 of the Province of
Oriental Mindoro x x x “did not qualify as such petition
because it only called for the conduct of a joint session
between the two sanggunians x x x. The resolution did not
lay claim over Liwagao Island x x x. Much less did it state
the grounds, reasons or justification for a claim, as
required by the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of the Local Government Code.”32
Respondents’ Arguments

33
In their Comment, respondents initially argue for the
dismissal of the petition on technical grounds. Specifically,
respondents allege that (1) the instant case was filed one
day after the lapse of the 60-day reglementary period to file

a petition for certiorari/prohibition; (2) petitioners also
failed to attach a certified true copy of the assailed RTC
orders and to
_______________
29 Id., at p. 20.
30 Id., at p. 21.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id., at pp. 97-117.

23
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 23

file the required number of copies of the petition; and (3)

petitioners failed to pay the filing fee within the
reglementary period.
Next, respondents argue that petitioners failed to
adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.34 Citing past
decisions of this Court, respondents assert that following
said doctrine, a special civil action assailing the order of
the RTC should be filed with the Court of Appeals and not
with this Court.35
Respondents contend that the RTC has jurisdiction over
their petition because the same is not an appeal but an “an
original legal action to recover and get back the Island of
Liwagao.”36 They emphasize that the petition they filed
before the RTC is not one for settlement of boundary
dispute but for “recovery of jurisdiction/dominion over a
property.”37 According to respondents, the two actions
differ from each other in that in the action they filed, they
seek to “RECOVER possession, jurisdiction and dominion
over a property whose ownership had previously been
vested to them” while in case of settlement of boundary
dispute, “what is being prayed for is to CLAIM a property
whose ownership is in question.”38
Respondents insist that “there is no boundary
dispute”39 in this case. They argue that the boundary lines
between the Province of Oriental Mindoro and the Province
of Antique “[have] long been set forth and known to the
parties” and that the “issue on the possession of Liwagao
Island x x x only cropped up when the Municipality of

Bulalacao lent the island to the Municipality of Caluya in
the late 1970s.”40
_______________
34 Id., at p. 104.
35 Id.
36 Id., at p. 106.
37 Id., at p. 107.
38 Id., at p. 108.
39 Id.
40 Id.

24

Likewise, respondents aver that “there is no law

precluding a party from availing of any legal remedies
available to him/her under the law.”41 Citing previous
Court decisions, respondents insist that a party may resort
to an original action to affirm its rights over what it claims
to be its territory.42
Finally, respondents argue that even “assuming it is the
Sangguniang Panlalawigans of the Provinces of Oriental
Mindoro and Antique that have jurisdiction over the[ir]
petition x x x the factual circumstances rendered it
impossible for these legislative bodies to resolve the issue
involving the Island of Liwagao.”43 Respondents point out
that, prior to filing the petition before the RTC, it had
already made several attempts to “amicably discuss the
issue on jurisdictional claim.”44 However, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Antique categorically proclaimed that it
was not amenable to any form of settlement.45
The Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether the RTC has
jurisdiction over the respondents’ petition for recovery of
property and declaration of territorial and political
jurisdiction/dominion over Liwagao Island.

The Court’s Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Contrary to

petitioners’ claim, the RTC has jurisdiction over the
dispute. However, the RTC’s ruling that the case does not
involve a boundary dispute is incorrect.
_______________
41 Id., at p. 109.
42 Id.
43 Id., at p. 111.
44 Id., at p. 112.
45 Id.

25
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 25

The Case Involves a Boundary Dispute

Respondents insist that this case stems from an original
action for “recovery/declaration of territorial and political
jurisdiction/dominion” and not a boundary dispute; hence,
it is not within the purview of Section 118 of the Local
Government Code.
Respondents’ argument is erroneous.
A boundary dispute involving different local
government units is defined in the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR)46 of the Local Government
Code.47 Specifically, Rule III, Article 15 states:
RULE III
Settlement of Boundary Disputes
ARTICLE 15. Definition and Policy.—There is a

boundary dispute when a portion or the whole
of the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by
two or more LGUs. Boundary disputes between or
among LGUs shall, as much as possible, be settled
amicably. (Emphasis supplied)

Based on this definition, a boundary dispute may involve
“a portion or the whole” of a local government unit’s
territorial area. Nothing in this provision excludes a
dispute over an island. So long as the island is being
claimed by different local government units, there exists a

boundary dispute.
The allegations in the complaint filed before the RTC
point to a boundary dispute, as defined under the Local
Government Code.
Respondents are asserting their lawful jurisdiction over
Liwagao Island as against another local government unit
that
_______________
46 Administrative Order No. 270, issued on 21 February 1992.

47 Republic Act No. 7160.

26

currently has jurisdiction over the same. Therefore,

whether the case is denominated as recovery of possession
or claim of ownership, respondents’ objective is the same:
for respondents to regain their alleged territorial
jurisdiction over Liwagao Island.
Respondent Province of Oriental Mindoro itself
acknowledges that the conflict is a “boundary row” between
itself and the Province of Antique.48 As stated in Resolution
No. 1454-2012, the Province of Oriental Mindoro claims to
“adhere to the basic principle of amicably settling said
boundary dispute, as laid down in the provision of the Local
Government Code of 1991[.]”49
Thus, they are bound by their own assertions and cannot
now claim that the conflict does not involve a boundary
dispute.

Governed by Local Government Code of 1991

Having established that the case involves a boundary
dispute, the procedure to resolve the same is that
established under the Local Government Code. Under the
said law, “the respective legislative councils of the
contending local government units have jurisdiction over
their boundary disputes.”50 Sections 118 and 119 of the
Local Government Code state:
SECTION 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for

Settlement of Boundary Dispute.—Boundary disputes
between and among local government units shall, as
much as possible, be settled amicably. To this end:
(a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more
Barangays in the same city or municipality shall be
referred for
_______________
48 Rollo, p. 60.
49 Id.
50 National Housing Authority v. Commission on the Settlement of
Land Problems, 535 Phil. 766, 773; 505 SCRA 38, 45 (2006).

27
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 27

settlement to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or

Sangguniang Bayan concerned.
(b) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more
municipalities within the same province shall be
referred for settlement to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan concerned.
(c) Boundary disputes involving
municipalities or component cities of different
provinces shall be jointly referred for
settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces
concerned.
(d) Boundary disputes involving a component city
or municipality on the one hand and a highly
urbanized city on the other, or two (2) or more highly
urbanized cities, shall be jointly referred for
settlement to the respective Sanggunians of the
parties.
(e) In the event the Sanggunian fails to effect an
amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from the
date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall issue a
certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute
shall be formally tried by the Sanggunian concerned
which shall decide the issue within sixty (60) days
from the date of the certification referred to above.
SECTION 119. Appeal.—Within the time and

manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party
may elevate the decision of the Sanggunian concerned
to the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
over the area in dispute. The Regional Trial Court
shall decide the appeal within one (1) year from the
filing thereof. Pending final resolution of the disputed
area prior to the dispute shall be maintained and
continued for all legal purposes. (Emphasis supplied)

The specific procedure in settling boundary disputes is
outlined in Rule III of the IRR of the Local Government
Code:

28

RULE III
x x x x
ARTICLE 17. Procedures for Settling Boundary
Disputes.—The following procedures shall govern the
settlement of boundary disputes:
(a) Filing of petition — The sanggunian
concerned may initiate action by filing a petition, in
the form of a resolution, with the sanggunian having
jurisdiction over the dispute.
x x x
(g) Failure to settle — In the event the
sanggunian fails to amicably settle the dispute within
sixty (60) days from the date such dispute was
referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to that
effect and copies thereof shall be furnished the parties
concerned.
(h) Decision — Within sixty (60) days from the
date the certification was issued, the dispute shall be
formally tried and decided by the sanggunian
concerned. Copies of the decision shall, within fifteen
(15) days from the promulgation thereof, be furnished
the parties concerned, DILG, local assessor,
COMELEC, NSO, and other NGAs concerned.
(i) Appeal — Within the time and manner

prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party may
elevate the decision of the sanggunian concerned to
the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
over the dispute by filing therewith the appropriate
pleading, stating among others, the nature of the
dispute, the decision of the sanggunian concerned and
the reasons for appealing therefrom. The Regional
Trial Court shall decide the case within one (1) year
from the filing thereof. Decisions on boundary
disputes promulgated jointly by two (2) or more
sangguniang panlalawigans shall be heard by the
Regional Trial Court of the province which first took
cognizance of the dispute.

29
VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 29

As the Court has previously ruled, it is “only upon the

failure of these intermediary steps will resort to the RTC
follow, as specifically provided in Section 119 of the [Local
Government Code.]”51

The RTC has Jurisdiction over the Case

Respondents’ resort to filing a case before the RTC was
warranted under the circumstances of this case.
It must be emphasized that respondents followed the
procedure laid down in the Local Government Code. They
took all the necessary steps to settle the dispute within the
procedure set out in the law, and by all indication, was
prepared to see the matter thru in order to lay the issue to
rest.
However, petitioners failed to perform their concomitant
responsibility under the same law, leaving respondents
with no other recourse but to bring the matter to court.
Petitioners cannot demand that respondents now follow the
procedure when they themselves have made it impossible
for any party to follow the same. The Province of Antique’s
Resolution No. 142-2012 dated 25 May 2012, stating that
the Province of Antique was not amenable to any form of
settlement, effectively blocked any way to continue
following the steps in the IRR.
As such, respondents’ petition before the RTC must be

upheld. Otherwise, they will be left without any recourse or
legal remedy to assert their claim over Liwagao Island.
Such uncertainty is unacceptable, as the fate of the island’s
residents rests in the immediate resolution of the dispute.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The
Orders dated 23 April 2013 and 17 July 2013 issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, Branch
43, in Civil Case No. C-566 are AFFIRMED. The
temporary restraining
_______________
51 See Municipality of Pateros v. Court of Appeals, 607 Phil. 104, 119;

589 SCRA 130, 144 (2009).

30

order issued by the Court in its Resolution dated 14

October 2013 is LIFTED. The RTC is ORDERED to hear
and decide the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Brion, J., On Official Leave.
Petition dismissed, orders affirmed.
Notes.—The settlement of a boundary dispute involving

municipalities or component cities of different provinces
shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective
sanggunians or the provincial boards of the different
provinces involved, with the dissatisfied party being given
an avenue to question the decision of the sanggunian to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) having jurisdiction over the
area. (Calanza vs. Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines [PICOP], 586 SCRA 408 [2009])
Between a geodetic engineer and a tax assessor, the
conclusion is inevitable that it is the former’s certification
as to the location of properties in dispute that is
controlling, absent any finding of abuse of discretion.
(Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan, 609 SCRA
57 [2009])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Province of Antique vs. Calabocal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Province of Antique vs. Calabocal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Province of Antique vs. Calabocal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/2/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 793

G.R. No. 209146. June 8, 2016.*

Local Government Units; Boundary Disputes; There is a

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

provision excludes a dispute over an island. So long as the

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 15

Province of Antique vs. Calabocal

of the disputed area prior to the dispute shall be maintained

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

doro. Assailed in this petition are the Orders issued by

6 Id., at pp. 34-35.

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 17

“continued collecting real property taxes” from

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

diction over the island as evidenced by the fact that they

The Orders of the RTC

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 19

issued Resolution No. 142-2012 dated May 25,

20 Id., at pp. 34-35.

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Municipality of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. If it

The Court, in a Resolution dated 14 October 2013,

enforcement of the Orders dated 23 April 2013 and 17 July

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 21

Oriental Mindoro in Civil Case No. C-566 during the

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Panlalawigans in a boundary dispute in accordance with

day after the lapse of the 60-day reglementary period to file

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 23

file the required number of copies of the petition; and (3)

Island x x x only cropped up when the Municipality of

24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Likewise, respondents aver that “there is no law

The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Contrary to

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 25

The Case Involves a Boundary Dispute

ARTICLE 15. Definition and Policy.—There is a

claimed by different local government units, there exists a

46 Administrative Order No. 270, issued on 21 February 1992.

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

currently has jurisdiction over the same. Therefore,

SECTION 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 27

settlement to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or

SECTION 119. Appeal.—Within the time and

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(i) Appeal — Within the time and manner

VOL. 793, JUNE 8, 2016 29

As the Court has previously ruled, it is “only upon the

As such, respondents’ petition before the RTC must be

51 See Municipality of Pateros v. Court of Appeals, 607 Phil. 104, 119;

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

order issued by the Court in its Resolution dated 14

Del Castillo, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed, orders affirmed.

Notes.—The settlement of a boundary dispute involving

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like