DOJ Opinion No. 188, s. 1982

DOJ OPINION NO. 188 , s. 1982 August 26, 1982 The General Manager Public Estates Authority 7th Floor, Legaspi Towers 200 Paseo de Roxas, Makati Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on whether "local governments automatically acquire political jurisdiction over lands reclaimed adjacent to their respective municipal boundaries". LLpr It appears that the aforequoted query has been prompted by the actuations of some local governments, particularly Pasay City and the municipality of Paraaque, in demanding payment of realty taxes on reclaimed lands bordering their respective boundaries. It is your view that local governments cannot by themselves extend their jurisdiction beyond their territorial boundaries as fixed by law, and that, accordingly, their exercise of political jurisdiction over areas outside of their present boundaries is ultra vires in the absence of any authority from the State empowering them to do so. Subject to the extended discussion hereinafter given, we answer the query in the affirmative. It is the general rule that a municipal corporation has jurisdiction over the territory embraced within its corporate limits and that it cannot, without legal authorization, exercise its powers beyond its own corporate limits. Thus, it is necessary that the boundaries of a corporation must be fixed in order that they may be identified and that all may know the exact scope or section of territory or geographical division over which the municipal corporation has jurisdiction (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 1966 Ed., Vol. 2, p. 282). Nonetheless, it has been held, and this now appears to be the settled rule, that the boundaries of a municipality bordering on navigable waters may be extended for purposes of jurisdiction by the building of wharves, piers, or structures permanently filled in with earth, and extending into the water, or by natural accretions or gain of soil by allusion, or the filling out from the shore and reclaiming the land from the inundation of the water . (Treuth v. State 87 A 663 [1913] citing several precedents) In another case, it was held that if an individual has a right to extend his land by filling in and making improvements into the water and does so, the boundary of the municipality is extended in the same way and to the same extent (Poneleit v. Dudas, 106 A. 2d 479 [1954]). Accordingly, in the case of the reclined areas along Manila Bay, while ownership over the same may have been vested in or acquired by the Public Estates Authority, political jurisdiction over the said areas may be deemed vested in the respective local governments having jurisdiction over the territory adjoining the reclaimed portions. To rule otherwise would be to created the incongruous situation where a portion of the territory of the state is left without any political identity. LexLib Furthermore and significantly, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1899 which authorizes municipalities and chartered cities to reclaim lands at their own expense provides: "SEC. 2. Any and all lands reclaimed. as herein provided, shall be the property of the respective municipalities or chartered cities; Provided, However, that the new foreshore along the reclaimed areas shall continue to be the property of the National Government." By virtue of the foregoing provision, any and all lands reclaimed thereunder, shall become the property of the municipality or chartered city concerned except the new foreshore which would continue to be national government property. In these instances, there is no doubt that political jurisdiction over the reclaimed area is likewise acquired by the municipality or chartered city undertaking the reclamation project. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice