SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241161. November 7, 2018.]
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN SIMON, PAMPANGA, petitioner,vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MINALIN, PAMPANGA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 November 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241161 — Municipality of San Simon, Pampanga versus The Municipality of Minalin, Pampanga
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated February 26, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated July 26, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 138632-UDK, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution of the CA since the petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court adopts the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) findings 3 of facts and law as affirmed by the CA based on the evidence on record, which include documents submitted by the parties and those presented during the proceedings before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga (Sanggunian). Under Section 118 (b) 4 of the Local Government Code of 1991, Republic Act No. (RA) 7160, the primary jurisdiction to hear and decide boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities within the same province is vested with the sangguniang panlalawigan concerned.
When the respondent filed its request before the Sanggunian for the settlement of the boundary dispute, the latter required the petitioner to comment thereto. Subsequently, the Sanggunian conducted a hearing wherein the representatives of the respondent and the petitioner presented and expounded on their respective claims. Thereafter, the Sanggunian issued Resolution No. 269 5 which stated that the respondent and the petitioner agreed to amicably settle their dispute based on the result of the survey to be conducted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The said amicable settlement of the respondent and the petitioner was also embodied in a compromise agreement/memorandum of agreement before the Sanggunian.
After the ground survey and the evaluation of documents submitted by the respondent, the DENR recommended to the Sanggunian that the boundary dispute be resolved in the respondent's favor. Upon receipt of the written recommendation, the Sanggunian conducted another hearing wherein it was agreed that the parties would be allowed to comment on the DENR recommendation. Thereafter, the Sanggunian issued its assailed Resolution 6 dated November 13, 2006 wherein it resolved the boundary dispute in the respondent's favor. The record does not show that the petitioner submitted any opposition or objection to the said DENR recommendation. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the RTC pursuant to Section 119 7 of RA 7160. However, the petitioner failed to present its evidence before the RTC, as well as its memorandum and its comment to the briefer submitted by the respondent.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 55-69. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring.
2.Id. at 98-99.
3.Id. at 35-44. See Decision dated August 19, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch 54 in Civil Case No. 07-1370 (M) penned by Presiding Judge Lucina Alpez-Dayaon.
4. SECTION 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of Boundary Dispute. — Boundary disputes between and among local government units shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. To this end:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities within the same province shall be referred for settlement to the sangguniang panlalawigan concerned.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) In the event the sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be formally tried by the sanggunian concerned which shall decide the issue within sixty (60) days from the date of the certification referred to above.
5.Rollo, pp. 26-28.
6.Id. at 29-34.
7. SECTION 119. Appeal. — Within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party may elevate the decision of the sanggunian concerned to the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area in dispute. The Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within one (1) year from the filing thereof. x x x