The Supreme Court ruled that the boundaries of a municipality are defined by the law that creates it. Any interpretation that alters these boundaries, particularly if it reallocates territory without express legal authority, is invalid. This case emphasizes the principle that only the legislature can amend the boundaries of municipalities. This ruling ensures stability and predictability in local governance, preventing territorial disputes based on reinterpretations of existing laws. It underscores the importance of adhering to the original intent and explicit provisions of the law in resolving boundary conflicts.

Can a Boundary Be Expanded by Interpretation? The Marcos and Nueva Era Dispute

This case arose from a boundary dispute between the Municipalities of Marcos and Nueva Era in Ilocos Norte. The heart of the matter stemmed from the interpretation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3753, the law that created the Municipality of Marcos. The issue was whether the eastern boundary of Marcos, described as “the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary,” extended beyond the territories expressly carved out of Dingras, potentially encompassing a portion of Nueva Era.

The Municipality of Marcos was created in 1963 from several barangays of Dingras. Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753 defined these barangays and described the boundaries. While the description of the eastern boundary seemed to extend to the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary (now Ilocos Norte-Apayao boundary), it raised questions because Nueva Era lies between Marcos and this provincial boundary. Marcos argued that this boundary description entitled it to a portion of Nueva Era’s territory. Nueva Era countered that Marcos was created solely from Dingras’s territory and that the explicit naming of Dingras’s barangays excluded any territory from Nueva Era. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Ilocos Norte sided with Nueva Era, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The Court of Appeals (CA), however, partially reversed the RTC decision, stating that Marcos’s eastern boundary should extend to the Ilocos Norte-Kalinga-Apayao boundary line. This decision allocated a part of Nueva Era to Marcos, which led Nueva Era to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court needed to decide whether the CA erred in extending the eastern boundary of Marcos in a way that encroached on Nueva Era’s territory.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by examining the mode of appeal used by Marcos, clarifying that the CA correctly took cognizance of the case as a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, owing to the appellate jurisdiction of the CA over final judgments of the RTC.

Next, the Court tackled the argument that the creation of Marcos required a plebiscite, a contention that the Court dismissed by emphasizing that such requirement became effective only with the 1973 Constitution. The Court stated that “The Constitutional requirement that the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary of a province, city, municipality, or barrio should be subject to the approval by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the governmental unit or units affected is a new requirement that came into being only with the 1973 Constitution. It is prospective in character and therefore cannot affect the creation of the City of Mandaue which came into existence on June 21, 1969.” As such, the non-observance of plebiscite cannot retroactively invalidate Marcos’s creation.

The Court emphasized the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which states that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. Because R.A. No. 3753 specifically named the barangays of Dingras from which Marcos would be formed, it implied the exclusion of any territory from Nueva Era. Nueva Era territory, therefore, could not be said to have been appropriated for the creation of Marcos.

The Court reasoned that, although the law described Marcos as bounded on the east by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary, this description should not override the clear intent of the legislature. It stressed that only the barangays of Dingras were source territory of Marcos. Any interpretation of R.A. No. 3753 that resulted in annexing a portion of Nueva Era would contravene legislative intent. It is axiomatic that “laws should be given a reasonable interpretation, not one which defeats the very purpose for which they were passed.”

The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The original ruling of the Regional Trial Court in Ilocos Norte, which favored Nueva Era, was reinstated. This reinforced the principle that legislative intent and explicit legal provisions hold sway when determining municipal boundaries. Territorial integrity of a municipality can only be altered through express legislative action.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Municipality of Marcos could claim territory from Nueva Era based on the interpretation of its boundary description in R.A. No. 3753, despite Nueva Era not being explicitly named as a source of its territory.
What is the legal principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius?	This legal maxim means that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others. In this case, because R.A. No. 3753 only mentioned barangays from Dingras as composing Marcos, it excluded any barangays from Nueva Era.
Why was the plebiscite requirement not applicable in this case?	The plebiscite requirement for the creation of local government units came into effect with the 1973 Constitution, after Marcos was already created in 1963. Constitutional provisions are generally applied prospectively, not retroactively.
What did the Court decide regarding the eastern boundary of Marcos?	The Supreme Court ruled that the eastern boundary of Marcos could not be interpreted in a way that it would encroach upon or annex any part of Nueva Era’s territory. It emphasized that the municipality could only be carved out of Dingras’s barangays.
How did the Court view the CA’s decision?	The Supreme Court partly reversed the CA’s decision. It disagreed with the CA’s ruling that extended Marcos’s eastern boundary into Nueva Era’s territory and reinstated the RTC’s decision which upheld the SP’s ruling, affirming Nueva Era’s territorial jurisdiction.
What was the importance of legislative intent in the Court’s decision?	The Court emphasized that when interpreting a statute, the legislative intent behind the law must be considered. In this case, the legislative intent, as evidenced by the law and its explanatory note, was to create Marcos solely from Dingras’s territory.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for municipalities?	This ruling reinforces the principle that municipal boundaries are determined by the laws creating them, and that re-interpretations that expand or alter these boundaries without explicit legal authority are invalid. Thus, the ruling promotes legal stability.
Can this ruling affect future boundary disputes?	Yes, this ruling sets a precedent that in settling boundary disputes, the clear intention of the legislature, as reflected in the original law creating the municipality, is paramount and should guide the interpretation and resolution of such disputes.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the explicit provisions and intent of the law when resolving municipal boundary disputes. It affirms the principle that territorial adjustments require clear legal authorization. This landmark ruling thus protects the territorial integrity of local government units from encroachment based on ambiguous interpretations or unsubstantiated claims.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Municipality of Nueva Era v. Municipality of Marcos, G.R. No. 169435, February 27, 2008