G.R. No. 125646 September 10, 1999 In UND No.

In UND No. 96-016, the COMELEC accepted the position of the Municipality of Cainta and
ordered the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan to be held in abeyance until after the
court has settled with finality the boundary dispute involving the two municipalities.5 Hence, the
CITY OF PASIG, petitioner,
filing of G.R. No. 125646 by the City of Pasig.
vs.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTION and THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA,
PROVINCE OF RIZAL, respondents. The COMELEC, however, ruled differently in UND No. 97-002, dismissing the Petition for being
moot in view of the holding of the plebiscite as scheduled on March 15, 1997 where the creation of
Barangay Napico was ratified and approved by the majority of the votes cast therein.6 Hence, the
G.R. No. 128663 September 10, 1999
filing of G.R. No. 128663 by the Municipality of Cainta.

MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, petitioner,

The issue before us is whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Barangays
vs.
Karangalan and Napico should be suspended or cancelled in view of the pending boundary
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CITY OF PASIG, respondent.
dispute between the two local governments.

To begin with, we agree with the position of the COMELEC that Civil Case No. 94-3006 involving
the boundary dispute between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig presents a
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: prejudicial question which must first be decided before plebiscites for the creation of the proposed
barangays may be held.
Before us are two (2) petitions which both question the propriety of the suspension of plebiscite
proceedings pending the resolution of the issue of boundary disputes between the Municipality of The City of Pasig argues that there is no prejudicial question since the same contemplates a civil
Cainta and the City of Pasig. and criminal action and does not come into play where both cases are civil, as in the instant case.
While this may be the general rule, this Court has held in Vidad v. RTC of Negros
G.R. No. 125646 involves the proposed Barangay Karangalan while G.R. No. 128663 involves the Oriental, Br. 42,7 that, in the interest of good order, we can very well suspend action on one case
proposed Barangay Napico. The City of Pasig claims these areas as part of its jurisdiction/territory pending the final outcome of another case closely interrelated or linked to the first.
while the Municipality of Cainta claims that these proposed barangays encroached upon areas
within its own jurisdiction/territory. In the case at bar, while the City of Pasig vigorously claims that the areas covered by the proposed
Barangays Karangalan and Napico are within its territory, it can not deny that portions of the same
The antecedent facts are as follows: area are included in the boundary dispute case pending before the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo. Surely, whether the areas in controversy shall be decided as within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Municipality of Cainta or the City of Pasig has material bearing to the creation of
On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan Village that they be segregated the proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico. Indeed, a requisite for the creation of a barangay
from its mother Barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz, City of Pasig, and to be converted and is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified by metes and bounds or by more or less
separated into a distinct barangay to be known as Barangay Karangalan, the City Council of Pasig permanent natural boundaries.8 Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the
passed and approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, creating Barangay Karangalan in Pasig pending civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial
City. 1 Plebiscite on the creation of said barangay was thereafter set for June 22, 1996. jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only be an exercise in futility. Not only that, we
would be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of such barangays. Indeed,
Meanwhile, on September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig similarly issued Ordinance No. 52, Series of in Mariano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,9 we held that —
1996, creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City. 2 Plebiscite for this purpose was set for March 15,
1997. The importance of drawing, with precise strokes the territorial boundaries of
a local unit of government cannot be overemphasized. The boundaries must
be clear for they define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of a local
Immediately upon learning of such Ordinances, the Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or
cancel the respective plebiscites scheduled, and filed Petitions with the Commission on Elections government unit. It can legitimately exercise powers of government only
(hereinafter referred to as COMELEC) on June 19, 1996 (UND No. 96-016)3 and March 12, 1997 within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. Beyond these limits, its acts
are ultra vires. Needless to state, any uncertainty in the boundaries of local
(UND No. 97-002), respectively. In both Petitions, the Municipality of Cainta called the attention of
the COMELEC to a pending case before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, for government units will sow costly conflicts in the exercise of governmental
settlement of boundary dispute. 4 According to the Municipality of Cainta, the proposed barangays powers which ultimately will prejudice the people's welfare.
involve areas included in the boundary dispute subject of said pending case; hence, the scheduled
plebiscites should be suspended or cancelled until after the said case shall have been finally Moreover, considering the expenses entailed in the holding of plebiscites, it is far more prudent to
decided by the court. hold in abeyance the conduct of the same, pending final determination of whether or not the entire
area of the proposed barangays are truly within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Pasig.

1
Neither do we agree that merely because a plebiscite had already been held in the case of the SO ORDERED.
proposed Barangay Napico, the petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already been rendered
moot and academic. The issues raised by the Municipality of Cainta in its petition before the
COMELEC against the holding of the plebiscite for the creation of Barangay Napico are still
Digest:
pending determination before the Antipolo Regional Trial Court.

CITY OF PASIG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and THE
In Tan v. Commission on Elections,10 we struck down the moot and academic argument as follows MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, respondents
— G.R. No. 125646. September 10, 1999

Considering that the legality of the plebiscite itself is challenged for non- MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
compliance with constitutional requisites, the fact that such plebiscite had ELECTIONS, CITY OF PASIG, respondent
been held and a new province proclaimed and its officials appointed, the G.R. No. 128663. September 10, 1999
case before Us cannot truly be viewed as already moot and academic.
Continuation of the existence of this newly proclaimed province which
petitioners strongly profess to have been illegally born, deserves to be Facts:
inquired into by this Tribunal so that, if indeed, illegality attaches to its
creation, the commission of that error should not provide the very excuse for On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan Village that they be segregated from
perpetration of such wrong. For this Court to yield to the respondents' its mother Barangays and converted into a separate one, the City Council of Pasig passed and
urging that, as there has been fait accompli, then this Court should passively approved an ordinance, creating Barangay Karangalan scheduling the plebiscite on the creation of
accept and accede to the prevailing situation is an unacceptable suggestion. said barangay on June 22, 1996. Upon learning of the ordinance, the Municipality of Cainta filed a
Dismissal of the instant petition, as respondents so propose is a proposition petition on June 19, 1996 to the Commission on Elections to suspend or cancel the scheduled
fraught with mischief. Respondents' submission will create a dangerous plebiscite. According to the Municipality of Cainta, the proposed barangay involve areas included
precedent. Should this Court decline now to perform its duty of interpreting in the pending case before the RTC Antipolo Rizal, Br. 74 for settlement of boundary dispute, hence
and indicating what the law is and should be, this might tempt again those the plebiscite should be suspended or cancelled until after the said case shall have been finally
who strut about in the corridors of power to recklessly and with ulterior decided by the court.
motives, create, merge, divide and/or alter the boundaries of political
subdivisions, either brazenly or stealthily, confident that this Court will
abstain from entertaining future challenges to their acts if they manage to Meanwhile, on September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig similarly issued another ordinance,
bring about a fait accompli. creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City. Plebiscite for this purpose was set for March 15, 1997. Again
the Municipality of Cainta filed another petition on March 12, 1997 to suspend or cancel the
plebiscite on the same ground as for the proposed creation of Barangay Karangalan.
Therefore, the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should be held in abeyance
pending final resolution of the boundary dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of
Cainta by the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. In the same vein, the plebiscite held on March The COMELEC ordered the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan to be held in abeyance
15, 1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled and set aside. until the boundary dispute is settled because it presents a prejudicial question which must first be
decided. The City of Pasig filed the petition (G.R. No. 125646) to the Supreme Court, arguing that
there is no prejudicial question since the same contemplates a civil and criminal action and does not
WHEREFORE, premises considered, come into play where both cases are civil, as in the instant case.

1. The Petition of the City of Pasig in G.R. No. 125646 is In the case of Barangay Napico, the COMELEC dismissed the petition for being moot because the
DISMISSED for lack of merit; while plebiscite was already held and the creation ratified and approved by the residents. Hence, the
Municipality of Cainta filed a petition (G.R. No. 128663) to the Supreme Court.
2. The Petition of the Municipality of Cainta in G.R. No. 128663 is
GRANTED. The COMELEC Order in UND No. 97-002, dated Issue:
March 21, 1997, is SET ASIDE and the plebiscite held on March 15,
1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico in the City of Pasig
is declared null and void. Plebiscite on the same is ordered held in Whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Barangays Karangalan and
abeyance until after the courts settle with finality the boundary Napico should be suspended or cancelled in view of the pending boundary dispute between the two
dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta, local governments.
in Civil Case No. 94-3006.
Ruling:
No pronouncement as to costs.

2
The Court ruled that the pending civil case on boundary dispute presents a prejudicial
question which must first be decided before the creation of the proposed barangays. While the City
of Pasig argues that there is no prejudicial question since the same contemplates a civil and criminal
action and does not come into play where both cases are civil, as in the instant case, still in the interest
of good order, the Court can suspend action on one case pending the final outcome of another case
closely interrelated or linked to the first.

The decision on whose territorial jurisdiction the areas fall has material bearing to the creation of the
proposed Barangays. A requisite for the creation of a barangay is properly identified territorial
jurisdiction for these define the limits of the exercise of the governmental powers of the LGU.
Beyond these limits, its acts are ultra vires (beyond the legal capacity). Moreover, considering the
expenses entailed in the holding of plebiscites, it is far more prudent to hold in abeyance the conduct
of the same until the resolution of the boundary dispute.

In the case of Barangay Napico, the Court does not agree that the petition of the Municipality of
Cainta has been rendered moot and academic because the plebiscite was already held. The issues
raised are still pending and must first be resolved.
Therefore, the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should be held in abeyance; and
the plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 ratifying the creation of Barangay Napico should be annulled
and set aside, and any plebiscite thereto is hold in abeyance pending final resolution of the boundary
dispute.