Mun of Nueva Era v. Mun.

of Marcos (GR 169435; 2/27/08)

FACTS:

 The Municipality of Nueva Era was created from the settlements of Bugayong, Cabittaoran,
Garnaden, Padpadon, Padsan, Paorpatoc, Tibangran, and Uguis which were previously
organized as rancherias, each of which was under the independent control of a chief. Governor
General Francis Burton Harrison, acting on a resolution passed by the provincial government of
Ilocos Norte, united these rancherias and created the township of Nueva Era by virtue of
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 66 5 dated September 30, 1916.
 The Municipality of Marcos, on the other hand, was created on June 22, 1963 pursuant to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3753 entitled "An Act Creating the Municipality of Marcos in the Province
of Ilocos Norte.”
 Based on the first paragraph of the said Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753, it is clear that Marcos shall
be derived from the listed barangays of Dingras, namely: Capariaan, Biding, Escoda, Culao,
Alabaan, Ragas and Agunit. The Municipality of Nueva Era or any of its barangays was not
mentioned. Hence, if based only on said paragraph, it is clear that Nueva Era may not be
considered as a source of territory of Marcos.
 There is no issue insofar as the first paragraph is concerned which named only Dingras as the
mother municipality of Marcos. The problem, however, lies in the description of Marcos'
boundaries as stated in the second paragraph, particularly in the phrase: "on the East, by the
Ilocos Norte Mt. Province boundary.
 On the basis of the said phrase, which described Marcos' eastern boundary, Marcos claimed that
the middle portion of Nueva Era, which adjoins its eastern side, formed part of its territory. Its
reasoning was founded upon the fact that Nueva Era was between Marcos and the Ilocos Norte-
Apayao boundary such that if Marcos was to be bounded on the east by the Ilocos Norte-Apayao
boundary, part of Nueva Era would consequently be obtained by it.
 Marcos did not claim any part of Nueva Era as its own territory until after almost 30 years,7 or
only on March 8, 1993, when its Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 93-015.8 Said
resolution was entitled: "Resolution Claiming an Area which is an Original Part of Nueva Era, But
Now Separated Due to the Creation of Marcos Town in the Province of Ilocos Norte."
 Marcos submitted its claim to the SP of Ilocos Norte for its consideration and approval. The SP,
on the other hand, required Marcos to submit its position paper.
 On March 29, 2000, the SP of Ilocos Norte ruled in favor of Nueva Era, by dismissing the case of
Marcos. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte.
 In a decision dated June 6, 2005,the Court of Appeals partly reversed the Regional Trial Court
decision

ISSUE:

 WoN the eastern boundary of Marcos extends over and covers a portion of Nueva Era

RULING:

 NO. The Court cannot accept the contentions of Marcos. Only Dingras is specifically named by
law as source territory of Marcos. Hence, the said description of boundaries of Marcos is
descriptive only of the listed barangays of Dingras as a compact and contiguous territory.
Considering that the description of the eastern boundary of Marcos under R.A. No. 3753 is
ambiguous, the same must be interpreted in light of the legislative intent. The law must be given a
reasonable interpretation, to preclude absurdity in its application. We thus uphold the legislative
intent to create Marcos out of the territory of Dingras only
 Under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the
exclusion of another thing not mentioned. If a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to
operate, everything else must necessarily and by implication be excluded from its operation and
effect.49 This rule, as a guide to probable legislative intent, is based upon the rules of logic and
natural workings of the human mind.
 Petition is GRANTED. CA decision is partly REVERSED. RTC Decision is REINSTATED.
 EN BANC

[G.R. No. 169435. February 27, 2008.]

MUNICIPALITY OF NUEVA ERA, ILOCOS NORTE, represented by its Municipal

DECISION

REYES, R.T., J p:

AS the law creating a municipality fixes its boundaries, settlement of boundary disputes
between municipalities is facilitated by carrying into effect the law that created them.
Any alteration of boundaries that is not in accordance with the law creating a municipality is not
the carrying into effect of that law but its amendment, which only the Congress can do. 1
For Our review on certiorari is the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) reversing to a certain
extent that 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, in a case that
originated from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Ilocos Norte about the boundary dispute
between the Municipalities of Marcos and Nueva Era in Ilocos Norte.
The CA declared that Marcos is entitled to have its eastern boundary extended up "to the
boundary line between the province of Ilocos Norte and Kalinga-Apayao." 4 By this extension of
Marcos' eastern boundary, the CA allocated to Marcos a portion of Nueva Era's territory.
The Facts
The Municipality of Nueva Era was created from the settlements of Bugayong, Cabittaoran,
Garnaden, Padpadon, Padsan, Paorpatoc, Tibangran, and Uguis which were previously organized
as rancherias,each of which was under the independent control of a chief. Governor General Francis
Burton Harrison, acting on a resolution passed by the provincial government of Ilocos Norte, united
these rancherias and created the township of Nueva Era by virtue of Executive Order (E.O.) No.
66 5 dated September 30, 1916.
The Municipality of Marcos, on the other hand, was created on June 22, 1963 pursuant to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3753 entitled "An Act Creating the Municipality of Marcos in the Province of
Ilocos Norte." Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753 provides:
SECTION 1. The barrios of Capariaan, Biding, Escoda, Culao, Alabaan,
Ragas and Agunit in the Municipality of Dingras, Province of Ilocos Norte, are hereby
separated from the said municipality and constituted into a new and separate
municipality to be known as the Municipality of Marcos, with the following boundaries:
On the Northwest, by the barrios Biding-Rangay boundary going down to the
barrios Capariaan-Gabon boundary consisting of foot path and feeder road; on the
Northeast, by the Burnay River which is the common boundary of barrios Agunit and
Naglayaan; on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary; on the South, by
the Padsan River which is at the same time the boundary between the municipalities
of Banna and Dingras; on the West and Southwest, by the boundary between the
municipalities of Batac and Dingras.
The Municipality of Marcos shall have its seat of government in the barrio of
Biding.
Based on the first paragraph of the said Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753, it is clear that Marcos shall
be derived from the listed barangays of Dingras, namely: Capariaan, Biding, Escoda, Culao, Alabaan,
Ragas and Agunit. The Municipality of Nueva Era or any of its barangays was not mentioned. Hence,
if based only on said paragraph, it is clear that Nueva Era may not be considered as a source of territory
of Marcos.
There is no issue insofar as the first paragraph is concerned which named only Dingras as the
mother municipality of Marcos. The problem, however, lies in the description of Marcos' boundaries as
stated in the second paragraph, particularly in the phrase: "on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province
boundary."
It must be noted that the term "Mt. Province" stated in the above phrase refers to the present
adjoining provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Kalinga and Apayao, which were then a
single province.
Mt. Province was divided into the four provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and
Kalinga-Apayao by virtue of R.A. No. 4695 which was enacted on June 18, 1966. On February 14,
1995, the province of Kalinga-Apayao, which comprises the sub-provinces of Kalinga and Apayao, was
further converted into the regular provinces of Kalinga and Apayao pursuant to R.A. No. 7878.
 The part of then Mt. Province which was at the east of Marcos is now the province of Apayao.
Hence, the eastern boundary referred to by the second paragraph of Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753 is the
present Ilocos Norte-Apayao boundary.
On the basis of the said phrase, which described Marcos' eastern boundary, Marcos claimed
that the middle portion of Nueva Era, which adjoins its eastern side, formed part of its territory. Its
reasoning was founded upon the fact that Nueva Era was between Marcos and the Ilocos Norte-Apayao
boundary such that if Marcos was to be bounded on the east by the Ilocos Norte-Apayao boundary,
part of Nueva Era would consequently be obtained by it. 6
Marcos did not claim any part of Nueva Era as its own territory until after almost 30 years, 7 or
only on March 8, 1993, when its Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 93-015. 8 Said resolution
was entitled: "Resolution Claiming an Area which is an Original Part of Nueva Era, But Now Separated
Due to the Creation of Marcos Town in the Province of Ilocos Norte."
Marcos submitted its claim to the SP of Ilocos Norte for its consideration and approval. The SP,
on the other hand, required Marcos to submit its position paper. 9
In its position paper, Marcos alleged that since its northeastern and eastern boundaries
under R.A. No. 3753 were the Burnay River and the Ilocos Norte-Mountain Province boundary,
respectively, its eastern boundary should not be limited to the former Dingras-Nueva Era boundary,
which was coterminous and aligned with the eastern boundary of Dingras. According to Marcos, its
eastern boundary should extend further to the east or up to the Ilocos-Norte-Mt. Province boundary
pursuant to the description of its eastern boundary under R.A. No. 3753. 10
In view of its claim over the middle portion of Nueva Era, Marcos posited that Nueva Era was
cut into two parts. And since the law required that the land area of a municipality must be compact and
contiguous, Nueva Era's northern isolated portion could no longer be considered as its territory but that
of Marcos'. Thus, Marcos claimed that it was entitled not only to the middle portion 11 of Nueva Era but
also to Nueva Era's isolated northern portion. These areas claimed by Marcos were
within Barangay Sto. Niño, Nueva Era.
Nueva Era reacted to the claim of Marcos through its Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993. It
alleged that since time immemorial, its entire land area was an ancestral domain of the "tinguians," an
indigenous cultural community. It argued to the effect that since the land being claimed by Marcos must
be protected for the tinguians, it must be preserved as part of Nueva Era. 12
According to Nueva Era, Marcos was created out of the territory of Dingras only. And since R.A.
No. 3753 specifically mentioned seven (7) barrios of Dingras to become Marcos, the area which should
comprise Marcos should not go beyond the territory of said barrios. 13
From the time Marcos was created in 1963, its eastern boundary had been considered to be
aligned and coterminous with the eastern boundary of the adjacent municipality of Dingras. However,
based on a re-survey in 1992, supposedly done to conform to the second paragraph of Section 1 of R.A.
No. 3753, an area of 15,400 hectares of Nueva Era was alleged to form part of Marcos. 14 This was
the area of Barangay Sto. Niño, Nueva Era that Marcos claimed in its position paper.
On March 29, 2000, the SP of Ilocos Norte ruled in favor of Nueva Era. The fallo of its
decision 15 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Body has no alternative but to
dismiss, as it hereby DISMISSES said petition for lack of merit. The disputed area
consisting of 15,400 hectares, more or less, is hereby declared as part and portion of
the territorial jurisdiction of respondent Nueva Era. 16
R.A. No. 3753 expressly named the barangays that would comprise Marcos, but none of
Nueva Era's barangays were mentioned. The SP thus construed, applying the rule of expressio unius
est exclusio alterius, that no part of Nueva Era was included by R.A. No. 3753 in creating Marcos. 17
The SP ratiocinated that if Marcos was to be bounded by Mt. Province, it would encroach upon
a portion, not only of Nueva Era but also of Abra. Thus:
...Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the eastern boundary of Marcos
is indeed Mountain Province, Marcos will then be claiming a portion of Abra because
the province, specifically Barangay Sto. Niño, Nueva Era, is actually bounded on the
East by the Province of Abra. Abra is situated between and separates the Provinces
of Ilocos Norte and Mountain Province.
This is precisely what this body would like to avoid. Statutes should be
construed in the light of the object to be achieved and the evil or mischief to be
suppressed, and they should be given such construction as will advance the object,
suppress the mischief and secure the benefits intended. 18 (Citations omitted)
The SP further explained:
Invariably, it is not the letter, but the spirit of the law and the intent of the
legislature that is important. When the interpretation of the statute according to the
exact and literal import of its words would lead to absurdity, it should be construed
according to the spirit and reason, disregarding if necessary the letters of the law. It is
believed that congress did not intend to have this absurd situation to be created when
it created the Municipality of Marcos. This body, by the mandate given to it by the RA
7160 otherwise known Local Government Code,so believes that respondent Nueva
 Era or any portion thereof has been excluded from the ambit of RA 3753. Under the
principle of "espressio (sic) unios (sic) est exclusio alterius," by expressly naming
the barangays that will comprise the town of Marcos, those not mentioned are deemed
excluded. In Republic Act 4354, where Section 2 thereof enumerated the barrios
comprising the City of Davao excluding the petitioner Barrio Central as part of the said
City, the court held that there arose a prima facie conclusion that the said law abolished
Barrio Central as part of Davao City.
Historically, the hinterlands of Nueva Era have been known to be the home of
our brothers and sisters belonging to peculiar groups of non-(C)hristian inhabitants with
their own rich customs and traditions and this body takes judicial notice that the
inhabitants of Nueva Era have proudly claimed to be a part of this rich culture. With
this common ancestral heritage which unfortunately is absent with Marcos, let it not be
disturbed. 19 (Emphasis ours and citations omitted)
RTC Decision
On appeal by Marcos, the RTC affirmed the decision of the SP in its decision 20 of March 19,
2001. The dispositive part of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned
decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte is hereby AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED. 21
The RTC reasoned out in this wise:
The position of the Municipality of Marcos is that the provision of R.A. 3753 as
regards its boundary on the East which is the "Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province" should prevail.
On the other hand, the Municipality of Nueva Era posits the theory that only the
barrios of the Municipality of Dingras as stated in R.A. 3753 should be included in the
territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Marcos. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan
agreed with the position of Nueva Era.
xxx xxx xxx
An examination of the Congressional Records during the deliberations of the R.A.
3753 (House Bill No. 3721) shows the Explanatory Note of Congressman Simeon M.
Valdez, 2nd District, Ilocos Norte, to wit:
EXPLANATORY NOTE
This bill seeks to create in the Province of Ilocos Norte a new
municipality to be known as the Municipality of Marcos, to be comprised by the
present barrios of Capariaan, Biding Escoda, Culao, Alabaan, Ragas and
Agunit, all in the Municipality of Dingras of the same province. The seat of
government will be in the sitio of San Magro in the present barrio of Ragas.
xxx xxx xxx
On the other hand, the Municipality of Dingras will not be adversely
affected too much because its finances will still be sound and stable.Its capacity
to comply with its obligations, especially to its employees and personnel, will not
be diminished nor its operations paralyzed. On the contrary, economic
development in both the mother and the proposed municipalities will be
accelerated.
In view of the foregoing, approval of this bill is earnestly requested.
(Sgd.) SIMEON M. VALDEZ
Congressman, 2nd District
Ilocos Norte 22
Parenthetically, the legislative intent was for the creation of the Municipality of
Marcos, Ilocos Norte from the barrios (barangays) of the Municipality of Dingras, Ilocos
Norte only. Hence, the Municipality of Marcos cannot add any area beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Dingras, Ilocos Norte. This conclusion might
have been different only if the area being claimed by the Municipality of Marcos is
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Dingras and not the Municipality
of Nueva Era. In such case, the two conflicting provisions may be harmonized by
including such area within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Dingras as
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Marcos. 23 (Emphasis ours)
CA Disposition
Still determined to have a more extensive eastern boundary, Marcos filed a petition for
review 24 of the RTC decision before the CA. The issues raised by Marcos before the CA were:
 1. Whether or not the site of Hercules Minerals and Oil, Inc. which is within a
Government Forest Reservation in Barangay Sto. Niño, formerly of Nueva Era, is a
part of the newly created Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte.
2. Whether or not the portion of Barangay Sto. Niño on the East which is
separated from Nueva Era as a result of the full implementation of the boundaries of
the new Municipality of Marcos belongs also to Marcos or to Nueva Era. 25
The twin issues involved two portions of Nueva Era, viz.:(1) middle portion, where Hercules
Minerals and Oil, Inc. is located; and (2) northern portion of Nueva Era, which, according to Marcos,
was isolated from Nueva Era in view of the integration to Marcos of said middle portion.
Marcos prayed before the CA that the above two portions of Nueva Era be declared as part of
its own territory. It alleged that it was entitled to the middle portion of Nueva Era in view of the description
of Marcos' eastern boundary under R.A. No. 3753. Marcos likewise contended that it was entitled to
the northern portion of Nueva Era which was allegedly isolated from Nueva Era when Marcos was
created. It posited that such isolation of territory was contrary to law because the law required that a
municipality must have a compact and contiguous territory. 26
In a Decision 27 dated June 6, 2005, the CA partly reversed the RTC decision with the following
disposition:
WHEREFORE, we partially GRANT the petition treated as one
for certiorari.The Decisions of both the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Regional
Trial Court of Ilocos Norte are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as they made
the eastern boundary of the municipality of Marcos co-terminous with the eastern
boundary of Dingras town, and another is rendered extending the said boundary of
Marcos to the boundary line between the province of Ilocos Norte and Kalinga-
Apayao, but the same Decisions are AFFIRMED with respect to the denial of the
claim of Marcos to the detached northern portion of barangay Sto. Niño which should,
as it is hereby ordered to, remain with the municipality of Nueva Era. No costs.
SO ORDERED. 28
In concluding that the eastern boundary of Marcos was the boundary line between Ilocos Norte
and Kalinga-Apayao, the CA gave the following explanation:
Clearly then, both the SP and the RTC erred when they ruled that the eastern
boundary of Marcos is only coterminous with the eastern boundary of the adjacent
municipality of Dingras and refused to extend it up to the boundary line between the
provinces of Ilocos Norte and Mountain Province (Kalinga-Apayao). R.A. No. 3753, the
law creating Marcos, is very explicit and leaves no room for equivocation that the
boundaries of Marcos town are:
"On the Northwest by the barrios Biding-Rangay boundary going down
to the barrios Capariaan-Gabon boundary consisting of foot path and feeder
road; on the Northeast, by the Burnay River which is the common boundary of
barrios Agunit and Naglayaan; on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province
boundary;on the South by the Padsan River, which is at the same time the
boundary between the municipalities of Banna and Dingras; on the West and
Southwest by the boundary between the municipalities of Batac and Dingras."
To stop short at the eastern boundary of Dingras as the eastern boundary also
of Marcos and refusing to go farther to the boundary line between Ilocos Norte and
Mountain Province (Kalinga-Apayao) is tantamount to amending the law which
Congress alone can do. Both the SP and RTC have no competence to undo a valid
act of Congress.
It is not correct to say that Congress did not intend to take away any part of
Nueva Era and merge it with Marcos for it is chargeable with conclusive knowledge
that when it provided that the eastern boundary of Marcos is the boundary line between
Ilocos Norte and Mountain Province, (by the time of both the SB and RTC Decision
was already Kalinga-Apayao),it would be cutting through a portion of Nueva Era. As
the law is written so must it be applied. Dura lex sed lex! 29
The CA likewise held that the province Abra was not located between Marcos and Kalinga-
Apayao; and that Marcos would not encroach upon a portion of Abra for it to be bounded by Kalinga-
Apayao, to wit:
Nueva Era's contention that to lay out the eastern jurisdiction of Marcos to the
boundary line between Ilocos Norte and Mountain Province (Kalinga-Apayao) would
mean annexing part of the municipality of Itnig, province of Abra to Marcos as Abra is
between Ilocos Norte and Mountain Province is geographically erroneous. From Nueva
Era's own map of Region 1, which also depicts the locations of Kalinga-Apayao, Abra,
Mountain Province, Benguet and Nueva Vizcaya after the partition of the old Mountain
Province into the provinces of Kalinga-Apayao, Ifugao, Mountain Province and
Benguet, the province of Abra is situated far to the south of Kalinga Apayao and is
between the latter and the present Mountain Province, which is farther south of Abra.
Abra is part of the eastern boundary of Ilocos Sur while Kalinga-Apayao is the eastern
boundary of Ilocos Norte. Hence, in no way will the eastern boundary of the
municipality of Marcos encroach upon a portion of Abra. 30
 However, Marcos' claim over the alleged isolated northern portion of Nueva Era was denied.
The CA ruled:
Going now to the other area involved, i.e.,the portion of Sto. Niño that is
separated from its mother town Nueva Era and now lies east of the municipalities of
Solsona and Dingras and north of Marcos, it bears stressing that it is not included
within the area of Marcos as defined by law. But since it is already detached from Sto.
Niño, Marcos is laying claim to it to be integrated into its territory by the SP because it
is contiguous to a portion of said municipality.
We hold that the SP has no jurisdiction or authority to act on the claim, for it
will necessarily substantially alter the north eastern and southern boundaries of Marcos
from that defined by law and unduly enlarge its area. Only Congress can do that. True,
the SP may substantially alter the boundary of a barangay within its jurisdiction. But
this means the alteration of the boundary of a barangay in relation to
another barangay within the same municipality for as long as that will not result in
any change in the boundary of that municipality. The area in dispute therefore remains
to be a part of Sto. Niño, a barangay of Nueva Era although separated by the newly
created Marcos town pursuant to Section 7(c) of the 1991 Local Government
Code which states:
SEC. 7. Creation and Conversion.— As a general rule, the creation of a
local government unit or its conversion from one level to another shall be based
on verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services, to
wit:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Land Area.— It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two or more
islands or is separated by a local government unit independent of the
others;properly identified by metes and bounds with technical descriptions; and
sufficient to provide for such basic services and facilities to meet the
requirements of its populace. 31
The CA also expressed the view that Marcos adopted the wrong mode of appeal in bringing
the case to it. The case, according to the CA, was appealable only to the RTC. Nonetheless, despite
its pronouncement that the case was dismissible, the CA took cognizance of the same by treating it as
one for certiorari,to wit:
A final word. At the outset, we agonized over the dilemma of choosing between
dismissing outright the petition at bar or entertaining it. This is for the simple reason
that a petition for review is a mode of appeal and is not appropriate as the Local
Government Code provides for the remedy of appeal in boundary disputes only to the
Regional Trial Court but not any further appeal to this Court. Appeal is a purely
statutory right. It cannot be exercised unless it is expressly granted by law. This is too
basic to require the citation of supporting authority.
xxx xxx xxx
By the same token, since the Local Government Code does not explicitly grant
the right of further appeal from decisions of the RTCs in boundary disputes between
or among local government units, Marcos town cannot exercise that right from the
adverse decision of the RTC of Ilocos Norte. Nonetheless, because of the
transcendental legal and jurisdictional issues involved, we solved our inceptive
dilemma by treating the petition at bar as a special civil action for certiorari. 32
Nueva Era was not pleased with the decision of the CA. Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues
Nueva Era now raises the following issues:
a) Whether or not, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction on the Petition for Review on
Appeal, since Sec. 119 of the Local Government Code, which provides that "An
appeal to the Decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is exclusively vested
to the Regional Trial Court, without further Appeal to the Court of Appeals";
b) Whether or not, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion, in treating the
Petition for Review On Appeal, filed under Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court, as
a Petition for Certiorari,under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court;
c) Whether or not, the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of facts, in declaring that
MARCOS East is not coterminous with the Eastern boundary of its mother town-
Dingras. That it has no factual and legal basis to extend MARCOS territory
beyond Brgys.Agunit (Ferdinand) and Culao (Elizabeth) of Marcos, and to go
further East, by traversing and disintegrating Brgy.Sto. Niño, and drawing
parallel lines from Sto. Niño, there lies Abra, not Mt. Province or Kalinga-
Apayao. 33
 Basically, there are two (2) issues to resolve here: (1) whether or not the mode of appeal
adopted by Marcos in bringing the case to the CA is proper; and (2) whether or not the eastern boundary
of Marcos extends over and covers a portion of Nueva Era.
Our Ruling
Marcos correctly appealed the RTC
judgment via petition for review
under Rule 42.
Under Section 118 (b) of the Local Government Code, "(b)oundary disputes involving two (2)
or more municipalities within the same province shall be referred for settlement to the sangguniang
panlalawigan concerned." The dispute shall be formally tried by the said sanggunian in case the
disputing municipalities fail to effect an amicable settlement. 34
The SP of Ilocos validly took cognizance of the dispute between the parties. The appeal of the
SP judgment to the RTC was likewise properly filed by Marcos before the RTC. The problem, however,
lies in whether the RTC judgment may still be further appealed to the CA.
The CA pronounced that the RTC decision on the boundary dispute was not appealable to it.
It ruled that no further appeal of the RTC decision may be made pursuant to Section 119 of the Local
Government Code 35 which provides:
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.
The CA concluded that since only the RTC was mentioned as appellate court, the case may
no longer be further appealed to it. The CA stated that "(a)ppeal is a purely statutory right. It cannot be
exercised unless it is expressly granted by law. This is too basic to require the citation of supporting
authority." 36
The CA, however, justified its taking cognizance of the case by declaring that: "because of the
transcendental legal and jurisdictional issues involved, we solved our inceptive dilemma by treating the
petition at bar as a special civil action for certiorari." 37
The CA erred in declaring that only the RTC has appellate jurisdiction over the judgment of the
SP.
True, appeal is a purely statutory right and it cannot be exercised unless it is expressly granted
by law. Nevertheless, the CA can pass upon the petition for review precisely because the law allows it.
Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended
by R.A. No. 7902, 38 vests in the CA the appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commissions, among others. 39 B.P. Blg. 129 has been further supplemented by the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides for the remedy of appeal via petition for review
under Rule 42 to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Thus, the CA need not treat the appeal via petition for review filed by Marcos as a petition
for certiorari to be able to pass upon the same. B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, which is supplemented by
Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, gives the CA the authority to entertain appeals of such
judgments and final orders rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
At the time of creation of Marcos,
approval in a plebiscite of the
creation of a local government unit
is not required.
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria
established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. 40
The purpose of the above constitutional provision was acknowledged by the Court through
Justice Reynato S. Puno in Miranda v. Aguirre, 41 where it was held that:
The 1987 Constitution, more than any of our previous Constitutions, gave
more reality to the sovereignty of our people for it was borne out of the people power
in the 1986 EDSA revolution. Its Section 10, Article X addressed the undesirable
practice in the past whereby local government units were created, abolished, merged
or divided on the basis of the vagaries of politics and not of the welfare of the people.
Thus, the consent of the people of the local government unit directly affected was
required to serve as a checking mechanism to any exercise of legislative power
creating, dividing, abolishing, merging or altering the boundaries of local government
units. It is one instance where the people in their sovereign capacity decide on a matter
that affects them — direct democracy of the people as opposed to democracy thru
 people's representatives. This plebiscite requirement is also in accord with the
philosophy of the Constitution granting more autonomy to local government units. 42
Nueva Era contends that the constitutional and statutory 43 plebiscite requirement for the
creation of a local government unit is applicable to this case. It posits that the claim of Marcos to its
territory should be denied due to lack of the required plebiscite.
We agree with Nueva Era's contention that Marcos' claim over parts of its territory is not tenable.
However, the reason is not the lack of the required plebiscite under the 1987 and 1973 constitutions and
the Local Government Code of 1991 but other reasons as will be discussed below.
At the time Marcos was created, a plebiscite was not required by law to create a local
government unit. Hence, Marcos was validly created without conducting a plebiscite. As a matter of
fact, no plebiscite was conducted in Dingras, where it was derived.
Lex prospicit, non respicit. The law looks forward, not backward. 44 It is the basic norm that
provisions of the fundamental law should be given prospective application only, unless legislative intent
for its retroactive application is so provided. 45
In the comparable case of Ceniza v. Commission on Elections 46 involving the City of
Mandaue, the Court has this to say:
Petitioners assail the charter of the City of Mandaue as unconstitutional for not
having been ratified by the residents of the city in a plebiscite. This contention is
untenable. The Constitutional requirement that the creation, division, merger, abolition,
or alteration of the boundary of a province, city, municipality, or barrio should be subject
to the approval by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the governmental unit
or units affected is a new requirement that came into being only with the 1973
Constitution. It is prospective in character and therefore cannot affect the creation of
the City of Mandaue which came into existence on June 21, 1969. 47 (Citations omitted
and underlining supplied).
Moreover, by deciding this case, We are not creating Marcos but merely interpreting the law
that created it. Its creation was already a fait accompli.Therefore, there is no reason for Us to further
require a plebiscite.
As pointed out by Justice Isagani Cruz, to wit:
Finally, it should be observed that the provisions of the Constitution should be
given only a prospective application unless the contrary is clearly intended. Were the
rule otherwise, rights already acquired or vested might be unduly disturbed or
withdrawn even in the absence of an unmistakable intention to place them within the
scope of the Constitution. 48
No part of Nueva Era's territory was
taken for the creation of Marcos
under R.A. No. 3753.
Only the barrios (now barangays) of Dingras from which Marcos obtained its territory are
named in R.A. No. 3753. To wit:
SECTION 1. The barrios of Capariaan, Biding, Escoda, Culao, Alabaan,
Ragas and Agunit in the Municipality of Dingras, Province of Ilocos Norte, are hereby
separated from the said municipality and constituted into a new and separate
municipality to be known as the Municipality of Marcos,with the following boundaries:
Since only the barangays of Dingras are enumerated as Marcos' source of territory, Nueva
Era's territory is, therefore, excluded.
Under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the
exclusion of another thing not mentioned. If a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate,
everything else must necessarily and by implication be excluded from its operation and effect. 49 This
rule, as a guide to probable legislative intent, is based upon the rules of logic and natural workings of
the human mind. 50
Had the legislature intended other barangays from Nueva Era to become part of Marcos, it
could have easily done so by clear and concise language. Where the terms are expressly limited to
certain matters, it may not by interpretation or construction be extended to other matters. 51 The rule
proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute
had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly
mentioned. 52
Moreover, since the barangays of Nueva Era were not mentioned in the enumeration
of barangays out of which the territory of Marcos shall be set, their omission must be held to have been
done intentionally. This conclusion finds support in the rule of casus omissus pro omisso habendus est,
which states that a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been
omitted intentionally. 53
Furthermore, this conclusion on the intention of the legislature is bolstered by the explanatory
note of the bill which paved the way for the creation of Marcos. Said explanatory note mentioned only
Dingras as the mother municipality of Marcos.
 Where there is ambiguity in a statute, as in this case, courts may resort to the explanatory note
to clarify the ambiguity and ascertain the purpose and intent of the statute. 54
Despite the omission of Nueva Era as a mother territory in the law creating Marcos, the latter
still contends that said law included Nueva Era. It alleges that based on the description of its boundaries,
a portion of Nueva Era is within its territory.
The boundaries of Marcos under R.A. No. 3753 read:
On the Northwest, by the barrios Biding-Rangay boundary going down to the
barrios Capariaan-Gabon boundary consisting of foot path and feeder road; on the
Northeast, by the Burnay River which is the common boundary of barrios Agunit and
Naglayaan; on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary;on the South, by
the Padsan River which is at the same time the boundary between the municipalities
of Banna and Dingras; on the West and Southwest, by the boundary between the
municipalities of Batac and Dingras.
Marcos contends that since it is "bounded on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province
boundary," a portion of Nueva Era formed part of its territory because, according to it, Nueva Era is
between the Marcos and Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary. Marcos posits that in order for its eastern
side to reach the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary, it will necessarily traverse the middle portion of
Nueva Era.
Marcos further claims that it is entitled not only to the middle portion of Nueva Era but also to
its northern portion which, as a consequence, was isolated from the major part of Nueva Era.
We cannot accept the contentions of Marcos.
Only Dingras is specifically named by law as source territory of Marcos. Hence, the said
description of boundaries of Marcos is descriptive only of the listed barangays of Dingras as a compact
and contiguous territory.
Considering that the description of the eastern boundary of Marcos under R.A. No. 3753 is
ambiguous, the same must be interpreted in light of the legislative intent.
The law must be given a reasonable interpretation, to preclude absurdity in its
application. 55 We thus uphold the legislative intent to create Marcos out of the territory of Dingras only.
Courts must give effect to the general legislative intent that can be discovered from or is
unraveled by the four corners of the statute, and in order to discover said intent, the whole statute, and
not only a particular provision thereof, should be considered. 56 Every section, provision or clause of
the statute must be expounded by reference to each other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated
by the legislature. The intention of the legislator must be ascertained from the whole text of the law,
and every part of the act is to be taken into view. 57
It is axiomatic that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation, not one which defeats the
very purpose for which they were passed. This Court has in many cases involving the construction of
statutes always cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to defeat the purpose of the
legislature and stressed that it is of the essence of judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such
a deplorable result (of injustice or absurdity) and that therefore "a literal interpretation is to be rejected
if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results." 58
Statutes are to be construed in the light of the purposes to be achieved and the evils sought to
be remedied. Thus, in construing a statute, the reason for its enactment should be kept in mind and the
statute should be construed with reference to the intended scope and purpose. The court may consider
the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction,
injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers. 59
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is partly
REVERSED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Ilocos Norte is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte v. Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte, G.R. No. 169435,
[February 27, 2008], 570 PHIL 395-420)