SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225158. September 7, 2016.]
CITY OF PARAÑAQUE, petitioner, vs. KATIPUNAN NG MGA MAMAMAYAN NG BAGONG PARAÑAQUE, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DELFIN J. WENCESLAO, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 7 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225158 — City of Parañaque vs. Katipunan ng mga Mamamayan ng Bagong Parañaque, Inc., represented by its Chairman, Delfin J. Wenceslao, Jr.
RESOLUTION
Pursuant to Rule 45 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the January 29, 2016 Amended Decision 1 and the May 31, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101900 for non-compliance with the required verification as there is no proof that the City Mayor is duly authorized to institute the instant Petition and for lack of verified statement of material date of receipt of the assailed Amended Decision.
Moreover, after a judicious review of the records, the Court finds that the petitioner failed to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in granting respondent's motion for reconsideration and, ultimately, declaring Ordinance No. 03-06 (794) series of 2003 of the City of Parañaque as null and void.
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution mandates the procedure that must be undertaken in the alteration of a barangay, viz.:
No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, or divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Given the foregoing, the issue to be resolved is whether Ordinance No. 03-06 (794) series of 2003 substantially altered the boundary of Barangay Tambo.
We find that it does. A look into the Whereas clause of the said ordinance shows that the same was not merely passed in order to determine the barangay boundaries in the reclaimed areas in Manila Bay within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Parañaque. The third Whereas clause states:
WHEREAS, last November 9, 2000, the Sangguniang Barangay of Baclaran passed and approved Barangay Resolution No. 25, Series of 2002 entitled: 'A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HON. MAYOR JOEY P. MARQUEZ TO DIRECT THE CITY ASSESSOR SOLEDAD S. MEDINA CUE TO CORRECT AND TRANSFER THE TAX DECLARATION OF PROPERTIES AT ASEANA BUSINESS PARK FROM BARANGAY TAMBO TO BARANGAY BACLARAN.'
The ordinance, which seeks to implement the said Barangay Resolution, unequivocally transfers jurisdiction over Aseana Business Park from Barangay Tambo to Barangay Baclaran. This constitutes a substantial alteration of boundaries, albeit worded to appear that it is merely a transfer of tax declaration.
In Umali vs. Commission on Elections, 3 We explained the meaning of a substantial alteration of boundaries, viz.:
As the phrase implies, 'substantial alteration of boundaries' involves and necessarily entails a change in the geographical configuration of a local government unit or units. However, the phrase 'boundaries' should not be limited to the mere physical one, referring to the metes and bounds of the LGU, but also to its political boundaries. It also connotes a modification of the demarcation lines between political subdivisions, where the LGU's exercise of corporate power ends and that of the other begins. And as a qualifier, the alteration must be 'substantial' for it to be within the ambit of the constitutional provision. 4 SaCIDT
Similar to Umali, the implementation of Ordinance No. 03-06 (794) series of 2003 would result in Barangay Tambo losing 7% of its land area, more particularly territorial jurisdiction over the Aseana Business Park. 5 Although petitioner insists that tax declarations (showing that Aseana Business Park was moved from Barangay Tambo to Barangay Baclaran) cannot be used by respondent to prove the change in boundaries between the two barangays, petitioner never presented contrary proof to show that there was no alteration with either of the two barangays in relation to the territorial jurisdiction over Aseana Business Park.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the January 29, 2016 Amended Decision and May 31, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101900.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 21-25. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2. Id., pp. 28-29. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
3. G.R. Nos. 203974 & 204371, April 22, 2014, 723 SCRA 171, 192.
4. Id. 192.
5. rollo, p. 25.