Municipality of Isabel, Leyte vs. Municipality of Merida, Leyte

In adjudicating boundary disputes between local government units, tribunals are limited to the factual determination of the correct boundary line in accordance with the statutes creating the LGUs involved, and where the creating law enumerates specific barrios comprising the new municipality, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies to exclude any locality not so enumerated. The 1947 stone monuments installed contemporaneously with the creation of the municipality prevail over later-installed boundary markers based on non-contemporaneous surveying regulations.

The Municipality of Merida, created during the Spanish colonial administration and recognized as a municipality of Leyte as early as 1903, was the mother municipality from which the Municipality of Isabel was carved. Isabel was created pursuant to R.A. No. 191, enacted on June 22, 1947, which separated eight enumerated barrios — Quiot, Sta. Cruz, Libertad, Matlang, Tolingan, Bantigue, Apale, and Jonan — from Merida and constituted them into a new municipality, with the seat of government at barrio Quiot. The creation was formalized through Presidential Proclamation No. 49 issued by President Manuel Roxas on January 15, 1948. R.A. No. 191 did not delineate Isabel's territorial jurisdiction by metes and bounds but merely listed the constituent barrios. Boundary monuments were installed in 1947 along a dead creek named Doldol to mark the boundary between the two municipalities.

The Municipality of Isabel was created out of eight barrios of the Municipality of Merida, Province of Leyte, pursuant to R.A. No. 191, enacted on June 22, 1947. The law specifically enumerated the barrios of Quiot, Sta. Cruz, Libertad, Matlang, Tolingan, Bantigue, Apale, and Jonan as separated from Merida and constituted into the new municipality of Isabel, with the seat of government at barrio Quiot. The creation was formalized by President Manuel Roxas through Presidential Proclamation No. 49 on January 15, 1948. At about the same time, the boundary between Isabel and Merida was delineated by stone monuments placed at designated areas along the line, bearing markings of "1947," "M" for Merida on one side, and "I" for Isabel on the other.

The present controversy pertains to two of these monuments placed along a dead creek named Doldol: one placed shoreward thirty meters from the highway, which was lost after the lapse of time, and another placed near an ancient doldol tree. When the Isabel local government unit installed new boundary monuments in 1981, it failed to find the monument by the old doldol tree and instead placed a new monument along the Benabaye River, marked as Municipal Boundary Monument (MBM) No. 5. The placement of MBM No. 5 changed the boundary line and created a disputed area of 162.3603 hectares claimed by both Merida and Isabel. The dispute was aggravated by the erection of structures within the disputed area by entities from Isabel, including a welcome monument installed in 1988 by the Yellow Ladies of Isabel and a waiting shed built by barangay Apale, Isabel. The Isabel LGU likewise exercised jurisdiction over the disputed area by conducting highway clearing activities, prompting the barangay council of Benabaye, Merida, to seek assistance from the Sangguniang Bayan of Merida.

Acting on these requests, then Mayor Bernardino Solana of Merida organized a fact-finding committee to locate the original boundary monuments. The committee submitted a report, and on April 6, 1990, the Sangguniang Bayan of Merida adopted the findings and resolved to construct new boundary monuments in place of the lost ones. Isabel conducted its own investigation and maintained that MBM No. 5 and its other monuments were accurate, based on affidavits of residents, tax declarations, and cadastral maps. The municipal councils of both municipalities agreed to submit the boundary dispute to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte. The provincial board unanimously adopted the findings of its Committee on Boundary Disputes and adjudicated the dispute in favor of Merida, declaring the true boundary as the line along the dead Doldol Creek near the doldol tree and the highway, and ordering Isabel to remove MBM No. 5 and the welcome boundary marker. The board noted that R.A. No. 191's enumeration of eight barrios comprising Isabel did not include barangay Benabaye, which is part of Merida.

Dissatisfied, Isabel appealed to the RTC of Ormoc City pursuant to Section 119 of the Local Government Code. The RTC reversed the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution and declared the disputed 162.3603 hectares as belonging to Isabel, giving more weight to the testimonies of three elderly witnesses who testified that the true boundary between barangay Apale, Isabel, and barangay Benabaye, Merida, was the Benabaye River. The presiding judge conducted an ocular inspection and observed MBM No. 5, which appeared to have been installed many years prior and complied with the Manual for Land Surveys in the Philippines. The RTC did not consider the tax declarations submitted by both parties because they all referred to incidents after 1948. Merida's motion for new trial, premised on the unearthing of the 1947 monument near the ancient doldol tree after the RTC had rendered its decision, was denied, the trial court holding that photographs of the monument already formed part of the evidence considered by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and that new trial was unavailable under its appellate jurisdiction.

On appeal by Merida, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and reinstated the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution. The CA gave little probative value to Isabel's tax declarations, noting that some indicated the location of properties as "Benabaye, Isabel, Leyte" when Benabaye is indisputably associated with Merida. The CA found that the 1947 stone monument, though not seen during the RTC's ocular inspection, was supported by photographic and testimonial evidence of its existence and location, and gave it greater weight than Isabel's MBM No. 5, which was based on surveying regulations not contemporaneous with the foundation of Isabel. The CA likewise noted that some elective barangay officials of Benabaye, Merida, reside within the disputed area, consistent with the Local Government Code requirement that barangay elective officials be residents and registered voters of the barangay they serve.

• Existence of the Doldol Monument: Isabel argued that the existence of the monument near the ancient doldol tree, upon which the CA decision hinged, was never proven, as it was never inspected by the courts.
• Preponderance of Evidence: Isabel maintained that the preponderance of evidence shows that the disputed portion is actually part of barangay Apale, since the true boundary is demarcated by MBM No. 5, which was installed along the Benabaye River.

• Proper Boundary Determination: Whether the CA erred in reinstating the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution in favor of Merida, specifically whether the true boundary between Isabel and Merida is marked by the 1947 stone monuments along Doldol Creek or by Isabel's MBM No. 5 along the Benabaye River.

• Proper Boundary Determination: No. The CA did not err in reinstating the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution. The true and accurate boundary line between Isabel and Merida is the line demarcated by the old shoreward monument and the monument along the old Doldol Creek near the ancient doldol tree, both installed in 1947, consistent with R.A. No. 191.

• Proper Boundary Determination: The Constitution regulates the creation, division, merger, abolition, and substantial alteration of LGU boundaries, requiring plebiscite approval under Article X, Section 10. Under present laws, the function of tribunals in adjudicating LGU boundary disputes is strictly limited to the factual determination of the correct boundary line in accordance with the statutes creating the LGUs involved. R.A. No. 191 created Isabel by enumerating eight specific barrios separated from Merida, without delineating territorial jurisdiction by metes and bounds. Barangay Benabaye was not among the enumerated barrios. Applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of specific barrios implies the exclusion of others not mentioned; and following the rule of casus omissus pro omisso habendus est, the omission of Benabaye must be held to have been done intentionally. The 1947 stone monument along Doldol Creek, installed contemporaneously with Isabel's creation, more accurately reflects legislative intent than Isabel's MBM No. 5, which was installed in 1981 based on surveying regulations of recent vintage. The testimony of Isabel's first mayor, Galicano N. Ruiz, who described the location and circumstances of the installation of the doldol monument, was given greater weight than the affidavits of residents relied upon by the RTC, as his official position and manifest apprehension in binding incumbent Isabel officials to his statement bolstered the accuracy and reliability of his testimony. Isabel offered no credible rebuttal. Under the 1947 Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands, the corner marked by the doldol monument could not be considered lost, as Merida proffered sufficient evidence for its location and eventual recovery, including photographic and testimonial evidence. The tax declarations submitted by Isabel, some of which listed properties as located in "Benabaye, Isabel, Leyte," were given little probative value, since Benabaye was formerly a sitio of barangay Calunangan, Merida, and was carved out of a barangay indisputably part of Merida. The fact that some elective barangay officials of Benabaye, Merida, reside in the disputed area further bolstered Merida's claim, as the Local Government Code requires barangay elective officials to be residents and registered voters of the barangay they serve.

• Limited Function of Tribunals in Boundary Disputes — Under present laws, the function of tribunals in the adjudication of LGU boundary disputes is strictly limited to the factual determination of the correct boundary line in accordance with the statutes creating the LGUs involved. Tribunals cannot alter or modify municipal boundaries; that power belongs to Congress, subject to plebiscite approval. The Court applied this doctrine by confining its analysis to determining which monuments — the 1947 Doldol Creek monuments or Isabel's 1981 MBM No. 5 — more accurately reflected the territorial delimitation set forth in R.A. No. 191.

• 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. The Court applied this maxim to R.A. No. 191, which enumerated eight specific barrios comprising Isabel, holding that barangay Benabaye — not so enumerated — was deliberately excluded from Isabel's territorial jurisdiction.

• Casus Omissus Pro Omisso Habendus Est — A person, object, or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. The Court applied this rule to conclude that the legislature deliberately excluded Benabaye from Isabel's territory by not including it in the enumeration of barrios in R.A. No. 191.

• Primacy of the Municipal Charter in Boundary Disputes — In boundary dispute adjudication, tribunals must weigh and interpret the evidence presented in a manner which gives full effect to, and is most consistent with, the statute or statutes creating the LGUs involved. The Court applied this by using R.A. No. 191 as the lodestar for determining the correct boundary, finding the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's adjudication more congruent with the territorial delimitation set forth in that law.

• Obliterated vs. Lost Corners under the 1947 Manual of Instructions — An obliterated corner is one at whose point there are no remaining traces of the monument or its accessories, but whose location has been perpetuated or may be recovered beyond reasonable doubt by the acts and testimony of interested landowners, competent surveyors, other qualified local authorities, or witnesses, or by some acceptable record evidence. A corner will not be considered lost if its position can be recovered satisfactorily by means of the testimony and acts of witnesses having positive knowledge of the precise location of the original monument. The Court applied these guidelines to hold that the corner marked by the doldol monument could not be considered lost, as Merida proffered sufficient evidence — including Mayor Ruiz's testimony and photographic evidence — for its location and eventual recovery.

• "Hence, under present laws, the function of tribunals in the adjudication of LGU boundary disputes is limited to the factual determination of the correct boundary line in accordance with the statutes creating the LGUs involved." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi defining the scope of judicial and quasi-judicial authority in boundary disputes, confining tribunals to factual determination rather than boundary modification.

• "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 to operate, everything else must necessarily and by implication be excluded from its operation and effect." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the statutory construction principle applied to R.A. No. 191's enumeration of barrios, establishing that Benabaye was deliberately excluded from Isabel's territory.

• "The foregoing jurisprudence clearly illustrates that in boundary dispute adjudication, tribunals must weigh and interpret the evidence presented in a manner which gives full effect to, and is most consistent with, the statute or statutes creating the LGUs involved in the dispute." — This passage synthesizes the doctrinal framework for boundary dispute resolution, requiring evidentiary interpretation to conform to the creating statute.

• "As between the testimonial evidence (represented by the affidavits of some residents and public officials) of Isabel and its MBM No. 5 and the 1947 stone monument, We are inclined to give greater weight to the latter as the correct boundary between the Barangays of Apale and Benabaye." — This passage, drawn from the CA decision as quoted and adopted by the Supreme Court, states the evidentiary ruling that the contemporaneous 1947 monument prevails over the later-installed MBM No. 5.

• Municipality of Sogod vs. Judge Rosal, 278 Phil. 642 (1991) — Controlling precedent followed for the proposition that under the 1987 Constitution, the function of the provincial board to fix municipal boundaries is strictly limited to the factual determination of boundary lines between municipalities, in accordance with the laws creating said municipalities.

• Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte vs. Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte, 570 Phil. 395 (2008) — Followed for the principles that the municipal charter is the lodestar in boundary dispute resolution, and that the maxims expressio unius est exclusio alterius and casus omissus pro omisso habendus est apply to the enumeration of constituent barrios in a municipality's creating law. The Court relied on this case to construe R.A. No. 191 as deliberately excluding Benabaye from Isabel's territory.

• Municipality of Jimenez vs. Hon. Baz, Jr., 333 Phil. 1 (1996) — Followed for the principle that the power of provincial boards to settle boundary disputes is administrative in nature and limited to implementing the law creating the municipality; any alteration of boundaries not in accordance with the creating law constitutes an amendment rather than an implementation of that law.

• Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan, 623 Phil. 711 (2009) — Followed for the rule that in the absence of any other evidence, cadastral maps duly approved by the Director of Lands prevail over tax declarations and provincial assessor's certifications.

• Municipality of Pateros vs. Court of Appeals, 607 Phil. 104 (2009) — Cited for the principle that a local government unit can legitimately exercise governmental powers only within its territorial jurisdiction, and that acts outside these geographical bounds are ultra vires.

• Article X, Section 10, 1987 Constitution — Requires that no creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units shall take effect unless approved by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. Applied to establish that tribunals cannot alter LGU boundaries, as that power belongs to Congress subject to plebiscite approval.

• Sections 6, 10, and 441, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Set forth the authority to create, divide, merge, abolish, or substantially alter boundaries of LGUs, the plebiscite requirement, and the manner of creation of municipalities. Applied to confirm that substantial alteration of municipal boundaries requires an Act of Congress and plebiscite approval.

• Section 118, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Vests original jurisdiction over LGU boundary disputes in the proper sanggunian, with appellate jurisdiction in the RTC, subject to review by the Court of Appeals. Applied to establish the jurisdictional framework for the dispute.

• Section 39, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Requires barangay elective officials to be residents and registered voters of the barangay they serve. Applied to bolster Merida's claim, as elective officials of barangay Benabaye, Merida, reside in the disputed area.

• Republic Act No. 191 — The statute creating the Municipality of Isabel out of eight enumerated barrios of Merida. Applied as the lodestar for determining the correct boundary, the enumeration of barrios being the primary basis for excluding Benabaye from Isabel's territory.

• Chapter V, Sections 349, 350, and 355, 1947 Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands — Define "corner" and "monument," and distinguish between lost and obliterated corners, providing that a corner is not lost if its position can be recovered through the testimony of witnesses with dependable knowledge of the original location. Applied to hold that the doldol monument corner was at most obliterated, not lost, as Merida proffered sufficient evidence for its location and recovery.

Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concurred.