Title: 035 Calanza v. PICOP, 586 SCRA 408 (2009) Gr No.

146622
TOPIC: IV. Establishing the status of a LGC (C: settlement
of boundary dispute)

PONENTE: Concepcion, C.J.
Nature: Petition for review under Rule 45
AUTHOR: SJ Catubay
NOTES/QUICKIE FACTS:
There is no boundary dispute.
Parties:
Petitioner: Leonora P. Calanza, Eva M. Amoren, Gene P. Roo, Sanny C. Calanza, Gregorio C. Yncierto II, and Angel M. Puyo are
approved applicants of a small-scale mining permits for the purpose of extracting gold by the Governor of Davao Oriental

Respondent:
Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), owner of the TLAs over the land in which petitioners are to mine gold.

FACTS:
1. Petitioners having their applications for small-scale mining permits approved and allowed by the Governor of Davao Oriental
negotiated entry to the mining site with the PICOP.
2. The problem arose when PICOP prohibited them to enter into the mining area on the grounds that:
it has exclusive right of occupation, possession and control over the area being a logging concessionaire
The mining permits were defective since the mining area is situated in Surigao del Sur.
3. Petitioners filed a complaint against PICOP before the RTC praying that it or its agent be enjoined from preventing and
prohibiting the petitioners from entering into the mining site.
4. PICOP Contends:
RTC of Davao does not have jurisdiction over the complaint since the disputed area is situated in the Province of Surigao del
Sur.
The petitioners permits are void since it violated sec. 5 of RA 7076, which allegedly prohibits the issuance of mining permits
over areas covered by forest rights such as TLAs or forest reservation unless their status is withdrawn by the competent
authority
5. The RTC rule in favor of the petitioners ruling that:
The mining area is within the territory of the province of Davao thus the governor is vested with the power to issue the small-
scale permits.
6. The CA however reversed the decision of the RTC, ruling that:
The RTC erred in passing upon the issue of the boundary dispute between the provinces of Davao Oriental and Surigao
del Sur since the resolution of the boundary dispute primarily resides with the sangguniang panlalawigans of the two
provinces and the RTC has only appellate jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991.
The governor has no power to issue small-scale mining permits since such authority under Section 9 of Republic Act
No. 7076 is vested with the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board.
7. Hence the petition for review under Rule 45.http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html -
fnt7
ISSUE:
1) WON RTC has jurisdiction to determine the boundary dispute with regard to the contention of PICOP
2) WON the small-scale mining permits are valid.
HELD:
1) No, The Supreme affirmed the CA. RTC has no jurisdiction on the boundary dispute between Davao Oriental and
Surigao del Sur, its decision is a total nullity. There being no boundary dispute between LGUs.
2) No, the governor has no authority to issue mining permits pursuant to the prevailing statute of RA 7076.
RATIO:
1) There is boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of the territorial area of a Local Government Unit (LGU) is
claimed by two or more LGUs.
7
In settling boundary disputes, Section 118 of the 1991 Local Government Code
provides:
Sec. 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.1avvphi1
Under paragraph (c) of Section 118, 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. Section 119 of the Local Government Code gives a dissatisfied party an avenue to question
the decision of the sanggunian to the RTC having jurisdiction over the area, viz:
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 x x x.
Article 17, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing The Local Government Code of 1991 outlines the
procedures governing boundary disputes, which succinctly includes the filing of the proper petition, and in case of failure to
amicably settle, a formal trial will be conducted and a decision will be rendered thereafter. An aggrieved party can appeal
the decision of the sanggunian to the appropriate RTC. Said rules and regulations state:
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.
(b) Contents of petition - The petition shall state the grounds, reasons or justifications therefore.
(c) Documents attached to petition - The petition shall be accompanied by:
1. Duly authenticated copy of the law or statute creating the LGU or any other document showing proof of
creation of the LGU;
2. Provincial, city, municipal, or barangay map, as the case may be, duly certified by the LMB.
3. Technical description of the boundaries of the LGUs concerned;
4. Written certification of the provincial, city, or municipal assessor, as the case may be, as to territorial
jurisdiction over the disputed area according to records in custody;
5. Written declarations or sworn statements of the people residing in the disputed area; and
6. Such other documents or information as may be required by the sanggunian hearing the dispute.
(d) Answer of adverse party - Upon receipt by the sanggunian concerned of the petition together with the required
documents, the LGU or LGUs complained against shall be furnished copies thereof and shall be given fifteen (15)
working days within which to file their answers.
(e) Hearing - Within five (5) working days after receipt of the answer of the adverse party, the sanggunianshall
hear the case and allow the parties concerned to present their respective evidences.
(f) Joint hearing - When two or more sanggunians jointly hear a case, they may sit en banc or designate their
respective representatives. Where representatives are designated, there shall be an equal number of
representatives from each sanggunian. They shall elect from among themselves a presiding officer and a
secretary. In case of disagreement, selection shall be by drawing lot.
(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 the 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.
The records of the case reveal that the instant case was initiated by petitioners against respondents predicated on the
latters refusal to allow the former entry into the disputed mining areas. This is not a case where the sangguniang
panlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur jointly rendered a decision resolving the boundary dispute of the two
provinces and the same decision was elevated to the RTC. Clearly, the RTC cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the
case since there was no petition that was filed and decided by the sangguniang panlalawigans of Davao Oriental and
Surigao del Sur. Neither can the RTC assume original jurisdiction over the boundary dispute since the Local Government
Code allocates such power to the sangguniang panlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur. Since the RTC has
no original jurisdiction on the boundary dispute between Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur, its decision is a total nullity.
We have repeatedly ruled that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked
anytime.
8
It creates no rights and produces no effect. In fact it remains a basic fact in law that the choice of the proper
forum is crucial as the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void judgment for want of
jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed
pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
2) Petitioners small-scale mining permits are legally questionable. Under Presidential Decree No. 1899, applications of
small-scale miners are processed with the Director of the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau. Pursuant to Republic Act
No. 7076, which took effect
10
on 18 July 1991, approval of the applications for mining permits and for mining contracts
are vested in the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board. Composed of the DENR representative, a representative
from the small-scale mining sector, a representative from the big-scale mining industry and a representative from an
environmental group, this body is tasked to approve small-scale mining permits and contracts.

In the case under consideration, petitioners filed their small-scale mining permits on 23 August 1991, making them
bound by the procedures provided for under the applicable and prevailing statute, Republic Act No. 7076. Instead of
processing and obtaining their permits from the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board, petitioners were able to get the
same from the governor of Davao del Norte. Considering that the governor is without legal authority to issue said
mining permits, the same permits are null and void.






036
TOPIC: Settlement of Boundary Disputes
PONENTE: Justice Ynares-Santiago

AUTHOR: TRICIA C.
NOTES/QUICKIE FACTS:
BACKGROUND:
This case consists of two petitions which both question the propriety of the suspension of plebiscite proceedings pending the
resolution of the issue of boundary disputes between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig namely:
G.R. No. 125646 (referred to as CASE 1 for brevity): City of Pasig v. COMELEC and the Municipality of Cainta,
Province of Rizal.
G.R. No. 128663 (CASE 2): Municipality of Cainta, Province of Rizal v. COMELEC
CASE 1 involves the proposed Barangay Karangalan while CASE 2 involves the proposed Barangay Napico. The City of
Pasig claims these areas as part of its jurisdiction/territory while the Municipality of Cainta claims that these proposed
barangays encroached upon areas within its own jurisdiction/territory.

FACTS:
On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan Village that they be segregated from its mother Barangays
Manggahan and Dela Paz, City of Pasig, and to be converted and separated into a distinct barangay to be known as Barangay
Karangalan, the City of Council of Pasig passed and approved Ordinance No. 21, creating said barangay in Pasig City.
Plebiscite on the creation of said barangay was then set for June 22, 1996.
Meanwhile, on Sept 9, 1996, the City Pasig similarly issued Ordinance No. 52 creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City.
Plebiscite was likewise set for March 15, 1997.
The Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the respective plebiscites and filed Petitions (1996 Petition and 1997
Petition) with the COMELEC. In such petitions, the said municipality called the attention of the COMELEC to a pending case
before the RTC of Antipolo for settlement of boundary dispute. The proposed barangays, according to said municipality,
involve areas included in the boundary dispute subject of said pending case; hence, the scheduled plebiscites should be
cancelled until such case has been decided.
The COMELEC accepted the position of the Municipality of Cainta in the 1996 petition and ordered the plebiscite on the
creation of the Barangay Karangalan to be held in abeyance until after the court has settled with finality the boundary dispute
involving the two municipalities. Hence, CASE 1 was filed by the City of Pasig.
The COMELEC dismissed the 1997 Petition for being moot in view of the holding of the plebiscite as schedule on March 15,
1997 where the creation of Barangay Napico was ratified and approved by the majority of the votes cast therein. Hence,
CASE 2 was filed by the Municipality of Cainta.
PARTIES CONTENTIONS:
COMELEC is of the position that the pending case involving the boundary dispute between the Municipality of
Cainta and the City of Pasig presents a prejudicial question which must first be decided before plebiscites for the
creation of the proposed barangays may be held.
The City of Pasig argues that there is no prejudicial question since the same contemplates a civil and criminal action
and does not come into play where both cases are civil, as in the instant case.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html - fnt7
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Barangays Karanglan and Napico should be suspended or
cancelled in view of the pending boundary dispute between the two local governments?
2. Whether the petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already been rendered moot and academic due to the fact that a
plebiscite has already been held in the case of the proposed Barangay Napico?

HELD:
1. YES. The plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the
boundary dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta by the RTC of Antipolo City.
2. NO. The plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled and set
aside.
RATIO:
1. While the City of Pasig vigorously claims that the areas covered by the proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico are
within its territory, it cannot deny that portions of the same area are included in the boundary dispute case pending before the
RTC Antipolo. Whether the areas in controversy shall be decided as within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Pasig or
Municipality of Cainta has material bearing to the creation of the proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico. A requisite for
the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified by metes and bounds or by more or less
permanent natural boundaries. Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending civil case, until
and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would
only be an exercise in futility. Not only that, we would be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of such
barangays. The Supreme Court has cited Mariano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections in this wise:
The importance of drawing with precise strokes the territorial boundaries of a local unit of government cannot be
overemphasized. The boundaries must be clear for they define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of a local
government unit. It can legitimately exercise powers of government only within the limits of its territorial
jurisdiction. Beyond these limits, its acts are ultra vires. Needless to state, any uncertainty in the boundaries of local
government units will sow costly conflicts in the exercise of governmental powers which ultimately will prejudice
the peoples welfare.
2. The Court does NOT agree that merely because a plebiscite had already been held in the case of the proposed Barangay
Napico, the petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already been rendered moot and academic. The issues raised by the
Municipality of Cainta in its petition before the COMELEC against the holding of the plebiscite for the creation of Barangay
Napico are still pending determination before the RTC Antipolo. Again, the Supreme Court has cited another case (Tan v.
Commission on Elections) relevant to the subject matter:
Considering that the legality of the plebiscite itself is challenged for non-compliance with constitutional requisites,
the fact that such plebiscite had been held and a new province proclaimed and its officials appointed, the case before
Us cannot truly be viewed as already moot and academic. Continuation of the existence of this newly proclaimed
province which petitioners strongly profess to have been illegally born, deserves to be inquired into by this Tribunal
so that, if indeed, illegality attaches to its creation, the commission of that error should not provide the very excuse
for perpetration of such wrong. For this Court to yield to the respondents urging that, as there has been fait
accompli, then this Court should passively accept and accede to the prevailing situation is an unacceptable
suggestion. Dismissal of the instant petition, as respondents so propose is a proposition fraught with
mischief. Respondents submission will create a dangerous precedent. Should this Court decline now to perform
its duty of interpreting and indicating what the law is and should be, this might tempt again those who strut
about in the corridors of power to recklessly and with ulterior motives, create, merge, divide and/or alter the
boundaries of political subdivisions, either brazenly or stealthily, confident that this Court will abstain from
entertaining future challenges to their acts if they manage to bring about a fait accompli.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered,
1. The Petition of the City of Pasig in G.R. No. 125646 is DISMISSED for lack of merit; while
2. The Petition of the Municipality of Cainta in G.R. No. 128663 is GRANTED. The COMELEC Order in UND No. 97-
002, dated March 21, 1997, is SET ASIDE and the plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay
Napico in the City of Pasig is declared null and void. Plebiscite on the same is ordered held in abeyance until after the
courts settle with finality the boundary dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta, in Civil Case
No. 94-300.




037 Municipality of Kananga vs. Madrona
GR No. 141375 | April 30, 2003 | Panganiban

Parties:
Petitioner: MUNICIPALITY OF KANANGA, Represented by its Mayor, Hon. GIOVANNI M. NAPARI
Respondent: Hon. FORTUNITO L. MADRONA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City (Branch 35), the CITY OF ORMOC,
Represented by its Mayor, Hon. EUFROCINO M. CODILLA SR

Facts:
1. There was a boundary dispute between the Municipality of Kananga and Ormoc City. Both parties agreed to amicable
settlement though a joint session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Ormoc City and Sangguniang Bayan of Kananga.
2. Since no amicable settlement was reached, members of the joint session agreed to elevate the case to the proper court for
settlement which was reflected in the Resolution No. 97-01
3. The City of Ormoc filed a case before the RTC of Ormoc City to settle the boundary dispute

The Petitioners Case
4. Municipality of Kananga filed a Motion to Dismiss before the RTC based on the following grounds:
a. RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim.
b. There is no cause of action
c. That a condition precedent for filing the complaint has not been complied with
d. Ormoc is an independent chartered city
5. RTC Ruling: DENIED the motion of Municipality of Kananga
- Reason: Sec. 118 of the Local Government Code has been complied with when both parties decided to an amicable
settlement through a joint session. That being said, RTC has jurisdiction over the case under BP Blg. 129
6. Hence this petition by the Municipality of Kananga
Issue: WON RTC of Ormoc City may exercise original jurisdiction over the settlement of a boundary dispute between a municipality
and an independent component city.
Held: Yes
Ratio:
1. Under Sec. 118 of the 1991 Local Government Code, boundary disputes between and among local government units shall,
as much as possible, be settled amicably. This means that the parties concerned shall refer the issue for settlement in the
sanggunians concerned.
2. In other words, the settlement of a boundary dispute between a component city or a municipality on the one hand and a
highly urbanized city on the other -- or between two or more highly urbanized cities -- shall be jointly referred for
settlement to the respective sanggunians of the local government units involved.
3. Section 118 of the LGC applies to a situation in which a component city or a municipality seeks to settle a boundary dispute
with a highly urbanized city, not with an independent component city. While Kananga is a municipality, Ormoc is an
independent component city. Clearly then, the procedure referred to in Section 118 does not apply to them
4. Even if the said provision is not applicable, both parties still decided to enter into an amicable settlement but to no avail.
They also issued a resolution agreeing to elevate the case and bring the issue to the RTC for adjudication.
5. This means that the general rules governing jurisdiction, which is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the
parties, as provided for by BP Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 will be applied.
6. Sec. 19 of BP Blg 129 states that RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
7. Since there is no law providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or agency over the settlement of boundary
disputes between a municipality and an independent component city of the same province, RTC committed no grave abuse
of discretion in denying the municipalitys Motion to Dismiss.
8. RTCs have general jurisdiction to adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from their plenary powers.
They have the power not only to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time, but also to
do so to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage
As to whether Ormoc is an independent component or highly urbanized city
9. Kananga is a municipality constituted under Republic Act No. 542. Further, Ormoc is an independent component, city
created under Republic Act No. 179
10. Under Section 451 of the LGC, a city may be either component or highly urbanized. Ormoc is deemed an independent
component city, because its charter prohibits its voters from voting for provincial elective officials. It is a city
independent of the province. There is neither a declaration by the President of the Philippines nor an allegation by the
parties that it is highly urbanized

Case Law / Doctrine
The territorial boundaries define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of a local government unit. It can legitimately exercise
powers of government only within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. Beyond these limits, its acts are ultra vires.

Dispositive Portion
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the challenged Order AFFIRMED.