Province of Antique vs. Calabocal

A boundary dispute under the Local Government Code exists when a portion or the whole of a local government unit’s territorial area is claimed by two or more local government units; the mandatory administrative settlement procedure need not be exhausted where one party’s categorical refusal to participate makes compliance impossible or futile, thus permitting direct judicial action.

In the late 1970s, the mayor of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, orally lent the administration of Liwagao Island, a 114-hectare island situated between Oriental Mindoro and Antique, to the mayor of Caluya, Antique, on condition that the island would be returned upon the end of either official’s term. After both mayors’ terms ended in 1987, Caluya continued to exercise authority over the island. Oriental Mindoro passed resolutions asserting its jurisdictional rights and, in 2012, called for a joint session of the two provincial sanggunians to settle the dispute amicably. Antique initially indicated willingness but subsequently issued Resolution No. 142-2012, declaring it was not amenable to any settlement and asserting that the island belonged to Antique. Oriental Mindoro thereafter directed its legal office to file the appropriate court action.

• The Oral Loan and Continued Administration: Between 1978 and 1979, Mayor Dolores Bago of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, orally agreed to lend the administration of Liwagao Island to Mayor Oscar Lim of Caluya, Antique, without executing formal documents. The understanding was that the island would be returned upon termination of either mayor’s term. Both terms ended in 1987; Mayor Lim reportedly returned the island, but the Municipality of Caluya continued to exercise administration, collect real property taxes, and claim jurisdiction over the island’s inhabitants.
• Oriental Mindoro’s Assertion of Rights and Attempts at Settlement: On 15 April 2002, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro passed a resolution confirming its jurisdictional rights and dominion over Liwagao Island. On 20 February 2012, it adopted Resolution No. 1454-2012, calling for a joint session of the sanggunians of Oriental Mindoro and Antique to settle the jurisdictional claim. Antique’s Vice-Governor initially conveyed willingness; however, on 25 May 2012, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique issued Resolution No. 142-2012, categorically stating it was “not amenable to any form of settlement” and asserting that the island rightfully belonged to Antique. Oriental Mindoro’s sanggunian then directed the Provincial Legal Office to file the necessary legal action.
• Respondents’ RTC Petition and Petitioners’ Defenses: On 12 September 2012, respondents filed a petition for Recovery and Declaration of Political Jurisdiction/Dominion and Mandamus before the RTC of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro. They alleged they provide government services to Liwagao’s residents and that the island fell under their territorial jurisdiction prior to the loan. Petitioners answered, asserting that NAMRIA and DENR maps show Liwagao Island as part of Caluya, Antique, and that residents had consistently registered births, paid taxes, and voted in Caluya. Petitioners raised the affirmative defense that the action was a boundary dispute under Section 118(c) of the Local Government Code, which vests primary jurisdiction jointly in the sanggunians of the provinces involved.

• Boundary Dispute: Petitioners argued that the case involved a boundary dispute, defined as a disagreement between two entities over where the boundary lies, irrespective of whether the whole or only a part of a local government unit is involved.
• Primary and Exclusive Jurisdiction of Sanggunians: Petitioners maintained that under Section 118(c) of the Local Government Code, boundary disputes between municipalities of different provinces must be jointly referred for settlement to the sanggunians of the provinces, and only after settlement fails and a decision is issued may an appeal be taken to the RTC under Section 119. The RTC’s jurisdiction is purely appellate, not original.
• Improper Original Action: Petitioners contended that the petition filed before the RTC was an original complaint, not an appeal from a joint decision of the sanggunians. No formal petition for adjudication had been filed with or decided by the sanggunians; Oriental Mindoro’s Resolution No. 1454-2012 merely called for a joint session and did not lay out a specific claim with grounds as required by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code.

• Procedural Defects: Respondents argued for dismissal on technical grounds: the petition for certiorari was filed one day after the 60-day reglementary period; petitioners failed to attach certified true copies of the assailed orders or to file the required number of copies; and the filing fee was not paid within the reglementary period.
• Hierarchy of Courts: Respondents asserted that under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, a special civil action assailing an RTC order should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court.
• Nature of Action — No Boundary Dispute: Respondents countered that their action was one for recovery of jurisdiction and dominion over a property previously vested in them, not a boundary dispute. They argued that the boundary lines between the two provinces had long been established and that the issue arose only because of the loan. Thus, the Local Government Code provisions on boundary disputes did not apply.
• Futility Exception: Even assuming the case involved a boundary dispute, respondents contended that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique’s categorical refusal to settle made compliance with the statutory procedure impossible, justifying direct resort to the RTC. There is no law precluding an original action to affirm territorial rights when the administrative path has been definitively blocked.

• RTC Jurisdiction: Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over respondents’ petition for recovery and declaration of territorial jurisdiction over Liwagao Island, or whether the case is a boundary dispute exclusively cognizable in the first instance by the sanggunians of the two provinces under Sections 118 and 119 of the Local Government Code.

• RTC Jurisdiction: The RTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the action. The dispute over Liwagao Island constitutes a boundary dispute under Rule III, Article 15 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code, which defines a boundary dispute as one where “a portion or the whole of the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by two or more LGUs.” The island is claimed in its entirety by both provinces, squarely falling within this definition. Respondents themselves acknowledged the conflict as a “boundary row” in Resolution No. 1454-2012. While the Local Government Code prescribes a sequential administrative mechanism — joint referral to the sanggunians, attempted amicable settlement, formal trial, and decision, before appeal to the RTC — the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique’s Resolution No. 142-2012, declaring it was not amenable to any form of settlement, rendered further pursuit of that mechanism impossible and futile. Respondents initiated the process and were met with an unqualified refusal. Insisting on exhaustion of administrative remedies under these circumstances would leave respondents without any legal recourse to resolve the territorial dispute, a result the law cannot countenance. The RTC’s assumption of jurisdiction was thus warranted, and its orders denying the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction were affirmed, albeit on the corrected premise that a boundary dispute did exist.

• Definition of a Boundary Dispute (LGC-IRR, Rule III, Art. 15) — A boundary dispute exists when a portion or the whole of the territorial area of a local government unit is claimed by two or more LGUs. The definition does not distinguish between a part and the entirety of the area; a dispute over an entire island falls within its scope. Applied here, the competing claims of Oriental Mindoro and Antique over Liwagao Island constituted a boundary dispute, notwithstanding the characterization of the action as one for recovery of possession.
• Futility Exception to Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in Boundary Disputes — When one party’s formal, unqualified refusal to participate in the statutorily mandated settlement procedure makes compliance impossible, requiring strict sequential exhaustion of administrative remedies would be an exercise in futility and a denial of justice. The party seeking relief need not complete a process that the opposing party has already definitively closed. The Court thus permitted direct resort to the RTC because the Province of Antique’s resolution categorically rejected any settlement.

• “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.” — The Court quoted the IRR definition to establish that the conflict over Liwagao Island, although encompassing the entire island, is a boundary dispute subject to the Local Government Code’s regime.
• “Petitioners cannot demand that respondents now follow the procedure when they themselves have made it impossible for any party to follow the same.” — This passage encapsulates the futility exception; Antique’s own resolution foreclosed the administrative path, making judicial intervention the only viable remedy.
• “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.” — The Court emphasized the practical necessity of providing a legal forum to resolve the territorial conflict and the consequent public interest in a speedy determination.

• National Housing Authority v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 535 Phil. 766 (2006) — Followed; affirmed the principle that the respective legislative councils of contending local government units have jurisdiction over their boundary disputes.
• Municipality of Pateros v. Court of Appeals, 607 Phil. 104 (2009) — Cited and distinguished; the Court acknowledged the general rule that resort to the RTC follows only upon failure of intermediary administrative steps, but found that rule inapplicable where one party’s conduct had made those steps impossible.

• Section 118(c), Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) — Provides that boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the sanggunians of the provinces concerned. The Court recognized this as the primary mechanism but held that compliance was rendered futile by Antique’s refusal.
• Section 119, Local Government Code — States that any party may elevate the decision of the sanggunian to the proper RTC by way of appeal. The Court clarified that the RTC’s jurisdiction over the present case was not appellate but original, justified by the impossibility of completing the antecedent administrative steps.
• Rule III, Articles 15 and 17, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code (Administrative Order No. 270) — Article 15 defines a boundary dispute; Article 17 outlines the procedural steps from the filing of a petition to appeal. The definition in Article 15 was determinative of the nature of the dispute, while the procedure in Article 17 underscored that the process had been initiated but was stymied at the threshold by Antique’s resolution.

Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concurred. Brion, J., was on official leave.