[ GR No.

209146, Jun 08, 2016 ]

PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE v. RECTO A. CALABOCAL 
CARPIO, ACTING C.J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order[1] 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 Mindoro.
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 "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 jurisdiction 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 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 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, 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 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

In their Comment,[33] 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 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]

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.

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 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.

Settlement of Boundary Disputes 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 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:
RULE III
Settlement of Boundary Disputes

xxxx

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.

xxx

(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.
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 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.
LEONORA P. CALANZA, EVA M. AMOREN, GENE P. ROO, SANNY C. CALANZA,
GREGORIO C. YNCIERTO II and ANGEL M. PUYO,
Petitioners,
 
- versus -
 
PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PICOP), GOOD EARTH
MINERAL CORP. (GEMCOR), EVARISTO NARVAEZ, JR., RICARDO G. SANTIAGO,
ROBERTO A. DORMENDO and REYDANDE D. AZUCENA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 146622

April 24, 2009
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
 
DECISION
 
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
 
This Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside
the 19 June 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45234 which annulled the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Banganga, Davao Oriental, Branch 7, granting the
Complaint for Injunction filed by petitioners.
 
On 23 August 1991, petitioners Leonora P. Calanza, Eva M. Amoren, Gene P. Roo, Sanny C.
Calanza, Gregorio C. Yncierto II, and Angel M. Puyo filed with the Mines and Geo-Sciences
Development Service, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region XI, of
Davao City, applications for small-scale mining permits for the purpose of extracting gold. In their
applications, petitioners stated that the area where they will conduct mining operations was in the
Municipality of Boston, Davao Oriental.
 
On 22 December 1992, the governor of Davao Oriental, Rosalind Y. Lopez, approved the
applications and issued six small-scale mining permits in favor of the petitioners. Since the mining
areas applied for by petitioners were within the respondent Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines (PICOP) logging concession area under Timber License Agreements (TLAs) that covered
large tracts of forest lands of the Provinces of Surigao del Sur, Agusan del Sur, Davao Oriental and
Davao del Norte, petitioners negotiated with PICOP for their entry into the mining site at Barangay
Catihan, Municipality of Boston, Davao Oriental. PICOP, through its officer Roberto A. Dormendo,
refused petitioners entry into the mining area on the grounds that it has the exclusive right of
occupation, possession and control over the area being a logging concessionaire thereof; that
petitioners mining permits are defective since they were issued by the governor of Davao Oriental
when in fact the mining area is situated in Barangay Pagtilaan, Municipality of Lingig, Surigao del
Sur; and that mining permits cannot be issued over areas covered by forest rights such as TLAs or
forest reservations unless their status as such is withdrawn by competent authority.
 
On 7 May 1993, petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of
a Restraining Order, Damages and Attorneys Fees against PICOP and its officers before the RTC of
Banganga, Davao Oriental, praying that PICOP or its agent be enjoined from preventing and
prohibiting them from entering into the mining site.
 
 PICOP countered that the RTC of Davao Oriental has no jurisdiction over the complaint of
petitioners since the disputed area is situated in the Province of Surigao del Sur. PICOP also claimed
that the issuance of petitioners permits were void ab initio since the same violated Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 7076, otherwise known as the Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991, which
allegedly prohibits the issuance of mining permits over areas covered by forest rights such as TLAs or
forest reservations unless their status as such is withdrawn by the competent authority.
 
In the Pre-Trial Order dated 4 October 1993, the following are identified as the issues:
 
1. Whether the mining areas claimed by petitioners are found
within the territories of Davao Oriental or Surigao del Sur.
2. Whether the small-scale mining permits of petitioners are valid.
 
3. Whether PICOP has the right and authority to deny petitioners
access to, possession of and the authority to conduct mining
activities within the disputed areas. 
 
In a decision dated 26 November 1993, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. The RTC
opined that Barangay Pagtilaan (as claimed by PICOP) or Catihan (as claimed by petitioners) is within
the territory of the Province of Davao Oriental. Citing Section 465, paragraph (b), Sub-paragraph (3)iv
of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 which states to the effect that the
governor has the power to issue licenses and permits, the RTC ruled that the governor is vested with
the power to issue the small-scale mining permits to the petitioners. The decretal portion of the RTC
decision provides:
 
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:
 
1.      Declaring that all the [petitioners] have the rights under the laws to extract and remove
gold ore from their permit area as particularly described by its technical descriptions found in their
respective permits subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein;
 
2.      Finding that [respondents] have no rights to deny [petitioners] entry into the mining
permit areas and hereby enjoining [respondents], their agents, representatives, their attorneys, the
SCAA or any persons acting in their behalf to allow petitioners/permittees, their agents,
representatives and vehicles to enter, travel into the mining site areas of plaintiffs without any
restrictions, preventions and/or harassment of the purpose of conducting mining activities thereat;
 
3.      Further restraining and enjoining the respondents, their attorneys, agents and/or
representatives, the SCAA or its officers and such other persons acting for and in their behalf from
preventing, prohibiting or harassing the [petitioners], their agents or authorized representatives, their
vehicles, tools and other mining paraphernalias from entering, traveling into the mining site using
and passing through the most accessible concession roads of [respondents], such as but not limited to
Road 5M and spurs within PICOPs TLA 43 areas.
 
There being no evidentiary proof of actual and compensatory damages, and in the
absence of fraud or evident bad faith on the part of defendants, especially
PICOP, which apparently is exercising its right to litigate, this Court makes
no finding as to actual, compensatory and moral damages nor attorneys
fees. 
Respondent PICOP appealed the RTC decision.
 
 In a Decision dated 19 June 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision and
dismissed the complaint of respondents.
 
In setting aside the RTC Decision, the Court of Appeals stated 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 Court of Appeals also said that 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.
 
The disposition of the Court of Appeals reads:
 
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision in Civil
Case No. 489 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby
rendered dismissing the complaint filed by [petitioners]. 

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in
its Order dated 10 November 2000.
 
Hence, the instant petition.

The petition is not meritorious.

 
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. 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.
 
 
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
sanggunian shall 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. 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.
 
Moreover, 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 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.
 
Based on the discussions above, the Court of Appeals is correct in finding that petitioners have no
right to enter into and to conduct mining operations within the disputed lands under the infirmed small-scale
mining permits.
 
In fine, this Court defers to the findings of the Court of Appeals, there being no cogent reason to veer
away from such findings.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 19 June 2000 and its
Resolution dated 10 November 2000 reversing the 26 November 1993 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Banganga, Davao Oriental, Branch 7, are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
 
SO ORDERED.