Gr 252533 2020.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 September 2020 which reads as follows: "G.R. No. 252533 (The Municipality ofAguinaldo, represented by The Hon. Gaspar B. Chilagan, Jr., in his Capacity as Incumbent Municipal Mayor v. The Municipality of M ayoyao, 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 Decision2 dated May 24, 2019 and Resolution3 dated June 8, 2020 as to warrant the exercise of the CoUii'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 Comi (RTC) which declared the disputeu sitios, namely: Abagong, Po-oc, Magatawa, Badang, Torpoan, Bilog, Lubo, Bawang, and lmbanoy, as belonging to Mayoyao. The petiinent provisions of Batas Pam.bansa (BP) Big. 86,4 otherwise known as "An Act Creating the Municipality of Aguinaldo in the Province of Ifugao'' are as follows: 1 R(ILIO, pp. 12-26. 2 Id. at 34-41 ; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy w ith Associate Justi,~•~5 Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Rube n Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring. ' Id. at 43-47; penned by Associate Justice Maria El isa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Ruben Reynaldo G. Rox<1 s, concurring. 4 Enacted on September 20, 1980. (174)URES - more - '"~1 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 252533 September 16, 2020 Section 1. Barangays Bunhian, Damag, Galonogon. /tab, 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 Municipali ty 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 starling from the North shall fo llow 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 ri vers coming from Talele, Jacmal and Bunhian; fo llowing said river which constituted the boundaries between Barangays ltab and Banao; ltab and Alimit; and Itab and Nattum. On the Southeastern side, the boundary shall fo llow the known boundary between Barangay Ubao and the Municipal ity of Potia which will then include sitios Pusnaan and lvfapacopaco to the new Municipality of Aguinaldo; then fo llowing 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 !mown boundary between Barangay Damag and the Mun icipality of Natonin." A perusal of Section I of BP Big. 86 shows that the legislature intended that the following barangays, i.e., Bunhian, Damag, Galonogon, ltab, 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 exciusio 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 5 De La Salle Araneta University v. /Jernardo, 805 Phil. 580(2017). c. Id. 1 De La Salle Arane/a University v. Bernardo, supra nole 5. 074)URES - more - I,, ltl Resolution J G.R. No. 252533 September 16, 2020 Thus, contrary to Aguinaldo's argument that the list in Section .1 is n.ot 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 Macopaco which Section 2 of BP Blg. 86 expressly provided. As correctly pointed out by the RTC, Section 2 of BP Big. 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 Big. 86 must be interpreted as only recognizing the natural boundaries between the Barangays, particularly the Alimit River which traverses tlu·ough ltab, 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 CAG.R. SP No. 145002 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave). <174)URES Resolution 4 G.R. No. 252533 16 September 2020 BONDOC YAP & ASSOCIATES (reg) Counsel for Petitioner 17 V. Concepcion St., Morning Breeze Caloocan City ATTY. RODOLFO Q. AGBAYAN1 (reg) Counsel for Respondent #55 Dumlao Blvd., Brgy. Salvacion 3700 Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg) Regional Trial Court, Branch 15 Alfonso Lista, lfugao (Civil Case No. 206-15) JUDGMENT DIVISION (x) Supreme Court, Manila PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x) LIBRARY SERVICES (x) [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC] OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x) OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x) Supreme Court, Manila COURT OF APPEALS (x) Ma. Orosa Street Ermita, 1000 Manila CA-G.R. SP No. 145002 Please 11otify the Court ofa11y change in Y°'f, address. GR252533. 09/16/2020(174)URES ,,,,/} .