BARANGAYSANGALANGVS.

BARANGAYMAGUIHAN
G.R.No.159792,December23,2009
Thecaseisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderrule45,seekingtosetasidethe
decisionandresolutionoftheCA.
Therootofthecontroversyisaboutabarangayjurisdictiondisputebetweenpetitioner
Barangay Sangalang and respondent Barangay Maguihan, both situated in Lemery,
Batangas.Petitionerclaimsthelotstobewithintheirterritorialjurisdiction,whereas
respondentmaintainsthattheyarewithintheirterritorialboundary.
ThecasewaslodgedbeforetheSangguniangBayanofLemery,Batangas,whichreferred
ittoahearingcommitteethatrenderedareporttotheeffectthatthepropertiesbelonged
to petitioner. Such recommendation was affirmed by the Sangguniang Bayan.
RespondentappealedtotheRTC,whoruledinfavorofrespondent.Petitionerfileda
MotionforReconsiderationwhichwasdeniedbytheRTC.PetitionerfiledaNoticeof
Appeal,andlateronanAmendedNoticeofAppeal.TheCAdismissedtheappeal,ruling
thatpetitionerhadavaileditselfofthewrongremedyinfilinganoticeofappealinstead
offilingapetitionforreviewunderRule42oftheRulesofCourt.Towit:
"Given the procedural mandates, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Lemery,Batangas,datedApril27,2000,wasrenderedbytheRegionalTrialCourt
intheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction.Appropriately,underSection22ofBatas
PambansaBlg.129,decisionsoftheRegionalTrialCourtintheexerciseofits
appellate jurisdiction, shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of
petitionsforreviewunderRule42ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure."

the appealed resolution of the Sangguiniang Bayan, are null and void because
respondentMaguihanhasnotperfecteditsappealandbyreasonthereof,theRTC
hasnotacquiredappellatejurisdiction
HELD:
Astohisfirstassignederror,petitionerfaultstheCAforhavingstrictlyappliedthe
rulesofcourtnotwithstandinghischoiceofthewrongremedy;yet,ontheother
hand, as to his second assigned error, petitioner faults the RTC for not having
strictly applied the rules of court to respondents alleged failure to pay the
correspondingdocketfees.
AreadingoftherecordsofthecaseshowsthatitwasonlyinhisSupplemental
MotionforReconsiderationtotheRTCDecisionthatpetitionerfirstraisedtheissue
ofnonpaymentofdocketfees.Respondent,forhispart,filedwiththeRTCan
OppositionandCommentexplaininghisfailuretofilethecorrespondingdocket
fees, that the nonpayment of docket fees is correct, but that the appellant who
appealedthecasebyhimselfandbeingalaymanwasnotawarethatadocketfee
shouldbepaidincaseperfectionofanappealandnoonefromthecourtspersonnel
remindshimofthisrequirement.Inordernottosacrificetheendsofjustice,the
appellantwaswillingtopaythedocketfeeandotherlawfulchargesnecessaryfor
theperfectionofanappeal.
TheOrderdenyingpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationwassilentastotheissue
ofthenonpaymentofdocketfees.TheSupremeCourtdeemsthattheRTCmust
have accepted the explanation given by respondent, otherwise, said court would
havedismissedtheappealandreconsidereditsdecision.

TheCAalsoruledthatifsaidappealweretobeconsideredasanordinaryappeal
underRule41,itstillshouldbedismissed,becausethesubmittedappellantsbrief
failedtocontainasubjectindexandpagereferencestotherecordsrequirementinits
StatementofFactsandCaseandArgument,asprovidedforinSection13ofRule44
ofthe1997RulesofProcedure.PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration,which
wasdeniedbytheCA.

Thefailuretopaydocketfeesdoesnotautomaticallyresultinthedismissalofan
appeal,itbeingdiscretionaryonthepartoftheappellatecourttogiveitduecourse
ornot.TheSupremeCourtwillthennotinterferewithmattersaddressedtothe
sound discretion of the RTC in the absence of proof that the exercise of such
discretionwastaintedwithbiasorprejudice,ormadewithoutduecircumspectionof
theattendantcircumstancesofthecase.

ISSUES:
1.WhethertheCourtcommittedGADLEJindismissingtheappealsolelybasedin
therigidandstrictapplicationoftechnicalities,overridingthemeritoftheappealor
substantialjustice.
2.WhetherthedecisionandorderoftheRTCofLemery,Batangas,whichsetaside

Inanycase,themorepressingissueiswhetherornottheSupremeCourtshould
evenentertainpetitionersappeal.
ByfilingaNoticeofAppealassailingtheRTCDecision,petitionerhasavaileditself
oftheremedyprovidedforunderRule41oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovidesfor

theordinarymodeofappeal.TheCA,however,consideredpetitionerschoicetobe
thewrongremedyand,forthwith,dismissedthepetition.
After an examination of relevant laws pertinent to herein petition, the Supreme
CourtfindsthattheCAwascorrectinholdingthatpetitionerhadavaileditselfofthe
wrongremedy.AscorrectlyobservedbytheCA,underSection118oftheLocal
Government Code, the jurisdictional responsibility for settlement of boundary
disputes between and among local government units is to be lodged before the
properSangguniangPanlungsodorSangguniangBayanconcerned,ifitinvolvestwo
ormorebarangaysinthesamecityormunicipality.UnderSection118(e)ofthe
sameCode,ifthereisafailureofamicablesettlement,thedisputeshallbeformally
triedbythesanggunianconcernedandshalldecidethesamewithin(60)daysfrom
thedateofthecertificationreferredto.
Section119oftheLocalGovernmentCodealsoprovidesthatthedecisionofthe
sanggunianconcernedmaybeappealedtotheRTChavingjurisdictionoverthearea
indispute,withinthetimeandmannerprescribedbytheRulesofCourt.
Inthecaseatbar,itisclearthatwhenthecasewasappealedtotheRTC,thelatter
took cognizance of the case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, not its
original jurisdiction. Hence, any further appeal from the RTC Decision must
conformtotheprovisionsoftheRulesofCourtdealingwithsaidmatter.Onthis
score,Section2,Rule41oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Sec.2.Modesofappeal.
(a)Ordinaryappeal.TheappealtotheCourtofAppealsincasesdecidedbythe
RegionalTrialCourtintheexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdictionshallbetakenby
filinganoticeofappealwiththecourtwhichrenderedthejudgmentorfinalorder
appealedfromandservingacopythereofupontheadverseparty.Norecordon
appealshallberequiredexceptinspecialproceedingsandothercasesofmultiple
orseparateappealswherethelawortheseRulessorequire.Insuchcases,the
recordonappealshallbefiledandservedinlikemanner.
(b)Petitionforreview.TheappealtotheCourtofAppealsincasesdecidedby
theRegionalTrialCourtintheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdictionshallbeby
petitionforreviewinaccordancewithRule42.
Basedontheforegoing,itisapparentthatpetitionerhasavaileditselfofthewrong
remedy.SincetheRTCtriedthecaseintheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction,
petitionershouldhavefiledapetitionforreviewunderRule42oftheRulesof

Court,insteadofanordinaryappealunderRule41.Thelawisclearinthisrespect.
Inanycase,asinthepast,theSupremeCourthasrecognizedtheemergingtrend
towardsaliberalconstructionoftheRulesofCourt.Courtshavetheprerogativeto
relaxproceduralrulesofeventhemostmandatorycharacter,mindfulofthedutyto
reconcileboththeneedtospeedilyputanendtolitigationandtheparties'rightto
dueprocess.Innumerouscases,thisCourthasallowedliberalconstructionofthe
ruleswhentodosowouldservethedemandsofsubstantialjusticeandequity.Thus,
notwithstanding petitioners wrong mode of appeal, the CA should not have so
easily dismissed the petition, considering that the parties involved are local
governmentunitsandthatwhatisinvolvedisthedeterminationoftheirrespective
territorialjurisdictions.
Inthesamevein,theCAsstrictrelianceontherequirementsunderSection13of
Rule44ofthe1997RulesofProcedurerelatingtosubjectindexandpagereferences
inanappellantsbriefis,tostress,puttingapremiumontechnicalities.Whilethe
purposeofSection13, Rule 44, istopresenttotheappellatecourtinthemost
helpfullight,thefactualandlegalantecedentsofacaseonappeal,saidruleshould
notbestrictlyappliedconsideringthatpetitionersbriefbeforetheCAcontained
only 9 pages, the records of the case consisted only of a few documents and
pleadings,andtherewasnotestimonialevidence.
OtherIssues:
Moving on to the substantive merits of the case, what it basically involves is
adjudicationastowhichbarangaythelotsindisputebelong.Ideally,hereinpetition
shouldberemandedtotheCA,asthesameinherentlyinvolvesaquestionoffact.
However,sincethiscasehasbeenpendingforalmost13yearsnow,theSupreme
Courtdeemsitbesttoonceandforallsettlethecontroversy.
Article 17, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
GovernmentCodeof1991,outlinestheproceduresgoverningboundarydisputes,
includingthedocumentsthatshouldbeattachedtothepetition.
TheRTCobservedthatneitherofthepartiessatisfiedtherequirementthatallthe
enumerateddocumentsmustbeattachedtothepetition.Hence,liketheRTC,the
Supreme Court is left with no other option but to select which between the
documentspresentedbythepartiescarriesgreaterweightinprovingitsclaim.The
documents presented by petitioner were sourced from the tax assessors office,
whereas the documents presented by respondent were sourced from the land

managementbureau.
To the Supreme Courts mind, the presence of the cadastral map, which was
approvedbytheDirectorofLands,shouldbegivenmoreweightthanthedocuments
sourcedbypetitionerfromtheassessorsoffice.SaidmapwasapprovedonMarch
17, 1986, which was approximately 10 years before the controversy in hand
developed.Hence,thesameshouldbecontrollingintheabsenceofproofthatsuch
documentisinvalidorinaccurate.Asamatteroffact,notwithstandingthehearing
committees recommendation to rule in favor of petitioner, the committee itself
statedinitsreportthatthecadastralmapsubmittedbyrespondentwasauthentic.
Moreover, in ruling against petitioner, the RTC also gave greater weight to the
documentssubmittedbyrespondent,thus:
x x x This Court is mindful of the fact and takes judicial notice that the Land
ManagementBureauismannedbygeodeticengineerswithsufficientexpertiseand
isthecognizantagencyofgovernmentchargedwiththeresponsibilityofmatters
respectingsurveysofland.ThisCourtlikewisetakesintoconsiderationthattheduty
oftheprovincialandmunicipalassessorsareprimarilyassessmentsoftaxes.
It is undisputed that the Land Management Bureau is the principal government
agencytaskedwiththesurveyoflands,andthus,moreweightshouldbegiventothe
documents relating to its official tasks which are presumed to be done in the
ordinarycourseofbusiness.Betweenageodeticengineerandataxassessor,the
conclusion is inevitable that it is the formers certification as to the location of
propertiesindisputethatiscontrolling,absentanyfindingofabuseofdiscretion.As
correctlyobservedbyrespondentandtheRTC,thedutyofprovincialandmunicipal
assessorsisprimarilytheassessmentoftaxesandnotthesurveyoflands.
Lastly,petitioneralludestoapetition/resolutionallegedlyofpersonsresidinginthe
propertiesindisputetotheeffecttheyareunderthejurisdictionofpetitioner.Onthis
note, the Supreme Court agrees with the observation of the RTC that the
determinationastowhetherthepropertiesindisputearewithinacertainjurisdiction
isnotadecisiontobemadebythepopulace,towit:
xxxInsimplelanguage,thepopulationfollowstheterritoryandnotviceversa.Itis
thedeterminationoftheambitandsphereofthelandareaasculledintheapproved
barangaymapthatdeterminesthejurisdictionofthebarangayandnotthedecision
ofthepopulace.Toallowthelatterwillopenendlesslitigationconcerningdisputes
ofjurisdiction.
Insum,theSupremeCourtdoesnotbelittlethedocumentspresentedbypetitioneror

thedutiesoftheprovincialandmunicipalassessors;however,sincethedocuments
presentedbyrespondentaresourcedfromtheveryagencyprimarilytaskedwiththe
surveyoflands,morecredencemustbegiventothesameintheabsenceofproof
thatwouldcastdoubtonthecontentsthereof.
ThepetitionisPARTLYGRANTED.TheDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtof
AppealsareherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheDecisionandOrderofthe
RegionalTrialCourt,Lemery,Batangas,inBarangayJurisdictionDisputeNo.1,are
AFFIRMED.