049 Municipality Vs Madrona

49- MUNICIPALITY OF KANANGA vs.
MADRONA Pascual-Pranada
FACTS:
A boundary dispute arose between the Municipality of Kananga and the City of
Ormoc. By agreement, the parties submitted the issue to amicable settlement by
a joint session of theSangguniang Panlungsod of Ormoc City and
the Sangguniang Bayan of Kananga on October 31, 1997.
No amicable settlement was reached. Instead, the members of the joint session
issued Resolution No. 97-01, certifying that both the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Ormoc City and the Sangguniang Bayan of Kananga, Leyte have failed to settle
amicably their boundary dispute and have agreed to elevate the same to the
proper court for settlement by any of the interested party.
To settle the boundary dispute, the City of Ormoc filed before the RTC of Ormoc
City (Branch 35) on September 2, 1999, a Complaint docketed as Civil Case No.
3722-O.
Municipality of Kananga, petitioner, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following
grounds.
(1) That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the claim;
(2) That there is no cause of action; and
(3) That a condition precedent for filing the complaint has not been
complied with.
ISSUE: whether respondent court may exercise original jurisdiction over the
settlement of a boundary dispute between a municipality and an independent
component city.
HELD: YES
Jurisdiction is the right to act on a case or the power and the authority to hear
and determine a cause. It is a question of law. As consistently ruled by this
Court, jurisdiction over the subject matter is vested by law. Because it is a
matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at
the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of
the court.
Inasmuch as Section 118 of the LGC finds no application to the instant case,
the general rules governing jurisdiction should then be used. The applicable
provision is found in BP 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980, as amended by RA 769. Section 19(6) of this law provides:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxxxxxxxx
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Since there is no law providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or
agency over the settlement of boundary disputes between a municipality and
an independent component city of the same province, respondent court
committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to
Dismiss. RTCs have general jurisdiction to adjudicate all controversies except
those expressly withheld from their plenary powers. They have the power not
only to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the
first time, but also to do so to the exclusion of all other courts at that
stage. Indeed, the power is not only original, but also exclusive.
Municipality of
Kananga, petiti
oner
(1) That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the claim; - The governing law at the time of
the filing of the Complaint is Sec. 118 of the 1991 Local
Government Code. Under this provision, the settlement of a
boundary dispute between a component city or a municipality
on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the other -- or
between two or more highly urbanized cities -- shall be jointly
referred for settlement to the respective sanggunians of the
local government units involved.
(2) That there is no cause of action; and
(3)That a condition precedent for filing the complaint has not
been complied with.
CITY OF
ORMOC,
respondent
The RTC has jurisdiction. The governing law at the time of

the filing of the Complaint is Sec. 118 of the 1991 Local
Government Code. Sec. 118 of the LGC applies to a situation in
which a component city or a municipality seeks to settle a
boundary dispute with a highly urbanized city, not with an
independent component city. While Kananga is a municipality,
Ormoc is an independent component city. Clearly then, the
procedure referred to in Section 118 does not apply to them.
As previously stated, jurisdiction is vested by law and
cannot be conferred or waived by the parties. It must exist as a
matter of law and cannot be conferred by the consent of the
parties or by estoppel. It should not be confused with venue.
Since there is no law providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court or agency over the settlement of boundary disputes
between a municipality and an independent component city of
the same province, RTCs have general jurisdiction to adjudicate
all controversies except those expressly withheld from their
plenary powers. They have the power not only to take judicial
cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first
time, but also to do so to the exclusion of all other courts at
that stage. Indeed, the power is not only original, but also
exclusive.
SC

049 Municipality Vs Madrona

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

049 Municipality Vs Madrona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

49- MUNICIPALITY OF KANANGA vs.

(1) That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the

The RTC has jurisdiction. The governing law at the time of

You might also like