Settlement of boundary disputes such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed

G.R. No. 125646, September 10, 1999 – CITY OF PASIG v. COMELEC barangays would only be an exercise in futility. To rule otherwise might pay the way for
YNARES-SANTIAGO potentially ultra vires acts of such barangays.
As to Napico, merely because a plebiscite has been held does not render the petition
The City of Pasig passed ordinances creating two new barangays covering areas disputed of Cainta moot.
by the Municipality of Cainta in a civil case in the RTC. Cainta filed petitions before the
COMELEC to suspend or cancel the respective plebiscites. COMELEC ordered the DISPOSITIVE PORTION
suspension of the plebiscite for Brgy. Karangalan, but because the one for Brgy. Napico had Petition of Cainta granted. Plebiscite to ratify creation of Brgy. Napico declared void, and
already been held, it dismissed Cainta’s petition. The SC ruled that COMELEC was correct ordered held in abeyance until resolution with finality of the boundary dispute. Petition of
in holding in abeyance the Brgy. Karangalan plebiscite, and further ruled that Pasig dismissed.

DOCTRINE DIGESTER: Gabi Timbancaya

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.

FACTS
1. Residents of Karangalan Village asked that it be segregated from its mother
barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz, Pasig, and converted into a distinct barangay.
The City Council of Pasig passed an ordinance creating Brgy. Karangalan.
2. Pasig issued another ordinance creating Brgy. Napico.
3. Both ordinances set the dates for plebiscites for each barangay.
4. Upon learning of this, before the plebiscites could be held, the Municipality of Cainta
filed petitions with the COMELEC to suspend or cancel such plebiscites.
5. Cainta argued that there was a pending case before the RTC of Rizal for settlement of
boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta on the areas In question, and that such
plebiscites should be suspended or cancelled until the case should have been finally
decided.
6. As to Brgy. Karangalan, the COMELEC ordered that the plebiscite be held in abeyance.
However, the Brgy. Napico plebiscite pushed through as scheduled, and so the
COMELEC dismissed Cainta’s petition for being moot.
7. Pasig appealed from the decision on Brgy. Karangalan, while Cainta appealed from that on
Napico.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Brgys. Karangalan and Napico
should be suspended and cancelled in view of the pending boundary dispute
between Pasig and Cainta – YES
The boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta presents a prejudicial question
which must first be decided before plebiscites for the creation of the proposed barangays
may be held.
Pasig argued the general rule that there is no prejudicial question where both cases
are civil, a prejudicial question contemplates a civil and criminal action. However, the SC
held in Vidad v. RTC Negros Oriental that, in the interest of good order, we can very well
suspend action on one case pending the final outcome of another case closely interrelated
or linked to the first.
Portions of the areas covered by the proposed barangays are included in the
boundary dispute, and whether they shall be decided as within the territorial jurisdiction of
Cainta or Pasig has material bearing on the creation of the proposed barangays. Unless
1