SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252533. September 16, 2020.]
THE MUNICIPALITY OF AGUINALDO, REPRESENTED BY THE HON. GASPAR B. CHILAGAN, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS INCUMBENT MUNICIPAL MAYOR, petitioner,vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MAYOYAO, REPRESENTED BY HON. JIMMY B. PADCHANAN, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS INCUMBENT MUNICIPAL MAYOR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252533 (The Municipality of Aguinaldo, represented by The Hon. Gaspar B. Chilagan, Jr., in his Capacity as Incumbent Municipal Mayor v. The Municipality of Mayoyao, represented by Hon. Jimmy B. Padchanan, Jr., in his Capacity as Incumbent Municipal Mayor). — After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 145002 committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 2 dated May 24, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated June 8, 2020 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
This case involves a boundary dispute between respondent Municipality of Mayoyao (Mayoyao) and petitioner Municipality of Aguinaldo (Aguinaldo). Specifically, the issue to be resolved by the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared the disputed sitios, namely: Abagong, Po-oc, Magatawa, Badang, Torpoan, Bilog, Lubo, Bawang, and Imbanoy, as belonging to Mayoyao.
The pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 86, 4 otherwise known as "An Act Creating the Municipality of Aguinaldo in the Province of Ifugao'' are as follows:
Section 1. Barangays Bunhian, Damag, Galonogon, Itab, Jacmal, Taang, Talete, and Ubao, all within the Municipality of Mayoyao, Province of Ifugao, are hereby separated from said municipality and constituted into a distinct and independent municipality in the same province to be known as the Municipality of Aguinaldo. The seat of government of the new municipality shall be in Barangay Galonogon.
Section 2. The Municipality of Aguinaldo shall be bounded as follows:
"The boundary starting from the North shall follow the recognized boundary between Barangays Talete and Liwo, cutting across the national road traversing Talete and Liwo, down to the big river constituted by the smaller rivers coming from Talete, Jacmal and Bunhian; following said river which constituted the boundaries between Barangays Itab and Banao; Itab and Alimit; and Itab and Nattum. On the Southeastern side, the boundary shall follow the known boundary between Barangay Ubao and the Municipality of Potia which will then include sitios Pusnaan and Mapacopaco to the new Municipality of Aguinaldo; then following the ridge of Mt. Liyachan to the mountain ridges over-looking sitio Manaot of Barangay Pinto, Municipality of Potia; then to the known boundary between the Municipality of Paracelis and Barangay Damag and in like manner the known boundary between Barangay Damag and the Municipality of Natonin."
A perusal of Section 1 of BP Blg. 86 shows that the legislature intended that the following barangays, i.e., Bunhian, Damag, Galonogon, Itab, Jacmal, Taang, Talete, and Ubao, are to be separated or removed from the jurisdiction of Mayoyao and thereafter to form part of Aguinaldo.
One of the rules in statutory construction is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning, the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. 5 One of the variations of this rule is that where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters. 6 The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations proceed from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumeration in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. 7
Thus, contrary to Aguinaldo's argument that the list in Section 1 is not exclusive, and as correctly ruled by the CA, the Court finds that the list of barangays under Section 1 was intended to be an exclusive list of barangays comprising Aguinaldo. The fact that Section 1 did not employ the restrictive word "only" does not negate the exclusivity of the list of barangays comprising Aguinaldo.
The only additions to the territory of Aguinaldo are sitios Posnaan and Mapacopaco which Section 2 of BP Blg. 86 expressly provided.
As correctly pointed out by the RTC, Section 2 of BP Blg. 86 expressly mentioned sitios Pusnaan and Mapacopaco of the then Municipality of Potia to be included in Aguinaldo. Further, as found by the RTC, the nine disputed sitios already formed part of Barangays Nattum (sitios Abagong, Po-oc, Magatawa, Badang, Torpoan, and Bilog) and Banao (sitios Lubo, Bawang, and Imbanoy). These two barangays form part of Mayoyao. Thus, had it been the intent of the legislature to include them in Aguinaldo, there should have been an express declaration to that effect just as the legislature categorically mentioned sitios Pusnaan and Mapacopaco.
Thus, as correctly ruled by the CA, Section 2 of BP Blg. 86 must be interpreted as only recognizing the natural boundaries between the Barangays, particularly the Alimit River which traverses through Itab, Nattum, and Banao.
Given the foregoing, the Court finds it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 24, 2019 and Resolution dated June 8, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 145002 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-26.
2.Id. at 34-41; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3.Id. at 43-47; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
4. Enacted on September 20, 1980.
5.De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, 805 Phil. 580 (2017).
6.Id.
7.De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, supra note 5.