8/9/2019 Jimenez v. Baz Digest (Local Governments)
1/2
Jimenez v. Baz (1996)
Mendoza J.
FACTS:
In 1949, pursuant to E.O. 258 of then President Quirino, the
Municipality of Sinacaban was created. Said order provided a
technical description1of Sinacabans metes and bounds, according
to which the Municipality would cut into the southern
portion of the Municipality of Jimenez.
1988: Pursuant to said technical description, Sinacaban laid
with the Provincial Board a claim to a portion of
particular barrios. However, the Municipality of Jimenez, while
conceding that under E.O. 258 the disputed area is
part of Sinacaban, asserted jurisdiction over the same areas on
the basis of an agreement it had entered into with
the Sinacaban.
o Said agreement was approved by the Provincial Board of Misamis
Occidental, in its Resolution No. 77
which provided that barrios Macabayao, Sitio Adorable and site
as part of Jimenez.
The Provincial Board declared the disputed area part of
Sinacaban.
o HELD: The resolution approving the agreement between the
municipalities was void because the Board
had no power to alter the boundaries as fixed in E.O. 258.
Jimenez files a petitioner for certiorari, mandamus, and
prohibition with the RTC.
Following thePelaez v. Auditor Generaldoctrine, Jimenez contends
that the power to create municipalities isessentially legislative,
and consequently, Sinacaban, which was created by an executive
order, had no legal
personality and no right to assert a territorial claim.
RTC ruled in Sinacbans favor.
o That Sinacaban is ade factocorporation since it had completely
organized itself even prior to the Pelaez
case and exercised corporate powers for forty years before the
existence was questioned;
o That Jimenez did not have the legal standing to question the
existence of Sinacaban, the same being
reversed to the State inquo warrantoproceedings;
o That Jimenez was estopped from questioning the legal existence
of Sinacaban after having entered into
an agreement with it;
o That any question as to Sinacabans legal existence has been
cured bySec 442(d) of the LGC, which
provides: Municipalities existing as of the date of the
effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist and
operate as such.
WoN Sinacaban legally exists(Yes, as a de facto
corporations)
Though, as ruled inPelaez v. Auditor General, the creation of
municipal corporations is essentially a legislative matter and
cannot be created by the executive, the court has since held
that where a municipality created as such by executive order
is later impliedly recognized, its creation can no longer be
questioned.
In the case ofMunicipality of San Narciso, Quezon v. Mendez,
Sr,the SC took into consideration the following
factors:
1.The fact that for nearly 30 years the validity of the creation
of the municipality had never been challenged;
2.The fact that following the ruling in Pelaez no quo warranto
suit was filed to question the validity of the
executive order creating such municipality;
3.The fact that the municipality was later classified as a fifth
class municipality in the Constitution apportioning
the seats in the House of Representatives.
1 Technical Description: On the north by a line starting from
point 1, the center of the lighthouse on the Tabo-o pointS. 840
0!"., #,$%0 meters to point $ &hich is on the ban' of (alilan
)i*er branch+ thence follo&ing (alilan )i*erbranch $,400 meters
south&esterly to point , thence a straight line S 8#0 00! ",
$$,%%0 meters to point 4, &here thisintersects the isamis
Occiental-/amboanga bounary+ on the &est, by the present isamis
Occiental- /amboangabounary+ an on the south by the present
imene-Tuela bounary+ an on the east, by the limits of the
municipal&aters &hich the municipality of Sinacaban shall
ha*e pursuant to section $$1 of the )e*ise 2ministrati*e
3oe,Description base on ata sho&n in 5nlarge ap of (oblacion of
imene, Scale 1:8:0006.
8/9/2019 Jimenez v. Baz Digest (Local Governments)
2/2
4.That the Sec. 442(d) of the LGC was curative.
o The same factors exist to confer on Sinacaban the status ofat
least a de facto municipal corporation.
It must be kept in mind that Sinacaban was created in 1949, and
it has therefore been in existence for already 40
years before it was questioned.
o This is emphasized given that Rule 66(16), onquo warrantosuits
against a corporation, must be
commenced within 5 years from the time the act complained of was
done.
o On the contrary, the State and Jimenez itself has recognized
Sinacabans existence.
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980: Sinacaban is constituted
as part of the municipal circuit for
purposes of the establishment of Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
Jimenez-Sinacaban Agreement- Speaks for itself.
Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution: Apportioning
legislative districts throughout the
country, which considered Sinacaban part of the Second
District.
o Moreover, indeed, Sec. 442(d) of the LGC is deemed to have
cured whatever doubts there may have been
to Sinacaban.
WoN Sec. 442(d) of the LGC is invalid in failing to conform to
the constitutional and statutory requirement of plebiscite in
the creation of new municipalities(No)
First of all, the requirement only applies to new municipalities
created under the 1987 Constitution.
Secondly, Sinacaban had attainedde factostatus at the time the
1987 Constitution took effect.
Thirdly, the requirement of plebiscite was fist introduced in
the 1973 Constitution which took effect on January 17,
1973. It cannot, therefore, be applied to municipal corporations
created before, such as the municipality of
Sinacaban (1949).
WoN the RTC erred in ordering a relocation survey of the
boundary of Sinacaban(No)
The barrios enumerated in E.O. 258 are not necessarily
exclusive. Sinacaban contains may include others.
Whether or not the agreement entered into by Jimenez and
Sinacaban is valid will be determined by the result of
the survey.
o Pelaez v. Auditor General: Power of provincial boards to
settle boundary disputes is "of an administrative
nature. Thus it is limited to implementing the law, and not
amending it.
o If any alterations of boundaries were made, Resolution 77
cannot be said to be merely administrative, nor
valid.In gist, if Resolution 77is contrary to the technical
description of the territory of Sinacaban, it cannot
be used by Jimenez as basis for opposing the claim.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
