Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Creation of LGU-Municipality of Jimenez
Creation of LGU-Municipality of Jimenez
The Municipality of Sinacaban was created by E.O. 258 by then Pres. Elpidio
Quirino, pursuant to Sec. 68 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. By virtue of
Municipal Council Resolution No. 171, Sinacaban laid claim to a portion of Barrio Tabo-
o and to Barrios Macabayao, Adorable, Sinara, Baja, and Sinara Alto, based on the
technical dedcription in E.O. No. 258. The claim was filed with the Provincial Board of
Misamis Occidental against the Municipality of Jimenez. While conceding that the
disputed area is part of Sinacaban, the Municipality of Jimenez, in its answer,
nonetheless asserted jurisdiction on the basis of an agreement it had with the
Municipality of Sinacaban.
In its answer, Jimenez, while conceding that under E.O. No. 258 the disputed
area is part of Sinacaban, nonetheless asserted jurisdiction on the basis of an
agreement it which was approved by the Provincial Board of Misamis Occidental in its
Resolution No. 77.
In its decision dated October 11, 1989, the Provincial Board declared the
disputed area to be part of Sinacaban. It held that the previous resolution approving the
agreement between the municipalities was void because the Board had no power to
alter the boundaries of Sinacaban as fixed in E.O. No. 258, that power being vested in
Congress. The Provincial Board denied in its Resolution No. 13-90 dated January 30,
1990 the motion of Jimenez seeking reconsideration.
On March 20, 1990, Jimenez filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus in the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 14. February 10, 1992,
the petition was denied.
The RTC’s decision also enunciated that the Commissioners are ordered to
conduct the relocation survey of the boundary of Sinacaban and to submit their report
from the completion of the said relocation survey. The RTC, inter alia, further held that
Sinacaban is a de facto corporation. On March 17, 1990, petitioner moved for a
reconsideration of the decision but its motion was denied by the RTC. Hence this
petition for review of the decision of the RTC which affirmed the legal existence of the
Sinacaban and ordering the relocation of its boundary for the purpose of determining
whether certain areas claimed by it belong to it.
ISSUE:
2. Whether R.A. 7160, Sec. 442 (d) is valid despite not conforming to the
constitutional and statutory requirements for the holding of plebiscites in the
creation of new municipalities.
RULING:
The State and even the Municipality of Jimenez itself has recognized
Sinacaban’s corporate existence. Sinacaban is constituted part of a municipal
circuit for purposes of the establishment of MTCs in the country. Jimenez had
earlier recognized Sinacaban in 1950 by entering into an agreement with it
regarding their common boundary. The Municipality of Sinacaban attained a de
jure status by virtue of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution,
apportioning legislative districts throughout the country, which considered
Sinacaban part of the Second District of Misamis Occidental. Sec. 442(d) of the
Local Government Code of 1991 must be deemed to have cured any defect in
the creation of Sinacaban since it states that: Municipalities existing as of the
date of the effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist and operate as such.
Existing municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential
issuances/executive orders and which have their respective set of municipal
officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall henceforth
be regular municipalities.
2. Whether R.A. 7160, Sec. 442 (d) is valid despite not conforming to the
constitutional and statutory requirements for the holding of plebiscites in
the creation of new municipalities.
The trial court correctly ordered a relocation survey as the only means of
determining the boundaries of the municipality & consequently to which
municipality the barangays in question belong. Any alteration of boundaries that
is not in accordance with the law is not the carrying into effect of the law but its
amendment – and a resolution of a provincial Board declaring certain barrios part
of one or another municipality that is contrary to the technical description of the
territory of the municipality is not binding. If Resolution No. 77 of the Provincial
Board of Misamis Occidental is contrary to the technical description of the
territory of Sinacaban, it cannot be used by Jimenez as basis for opposing
Sinacaban’s claim.
DOCTRINE:
Above all, it was held that whatever doubt there might be as to the de jure
character of the municipality must be deemed to have been put to rest by the
Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), Section 442(d) of which
provides that