83. BRGY. SANGALANG VS. BRGY.

MAGUIHAN the parties involved are local government units and that what is involved is the
determination of their respective territorial jurisdictions.—Notwithstanding
G.R. No. 159792. December 23, 2009.* petitioner’s wrong mode of appeal, the CA should not have so easily dismissed the
BARANGAY SANGALANG, represented by its Chairman DANTE C. petition, considering that the parties involved are local government units and that
MARCELLANA, petitioner, vs. BARANGAY MAGUIHAN, represented by its what is involved is the determination of their respective territorial jurisdictions. In
Chairman ARNULFO VILLAREZ, respondent. the same vein, the CA’s strict reliance on the requirements under Section 13 of Rule
Appeals; Docket Fees; The failure to pay docket fees does not automatically 44 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure relating to subject index and page references in
result in the dismissal of an appeal, it being discretionary on the part of the appellate an appellant’s brief is, to stress, putting a premium on technicalities. While the
court to give it due course or not.—The Order denying petitioner’s motion for purpose of Section 13, Rule 44, is to present to the appellate court in the most
reconsideration was silent as to the issue of the non-payment of docket fees; helpful light, the factual and legal antecedents of a case on appeal, said rule should
however, this Court deems that the RTC must have accepted the explanation given not be strictly applied considering that petitioner’s brief before the CA contained
by respondent, otherwise, said court would have dismissed the appeal and only 9 pages, the records of the case consisted only of a few documents and
reconsidered its decision. The failure to pay docket fees does not automatically pleadings, and there was no testimonial evidence.59
result in the dismissal of an appeal, it being discretionary on the part of the VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 59
appellate court to give it due course or not. This Court will then not interfere with Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
matters addressed to the sound discretion of the RTC in the absence of proof that Same; Same; Same; Evidence; The presence of the cadastral map, which was
the exercise of such discretion was tainted with bias or prejudice, or made without approved by the Director of Lands, should be given more weight than the documents
due circumspection of the attendant circumstances of the case. sourced from the assessor’s office.—The RTC observed that neither of the parties
Same; Pleadings and Practice; Where the Regional Trial Court tried the case satisfied the requirement that all the enumerated documents must be attached to
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the aggrieved party should file a petition the petition. Hence, like the RTC, this Court is left with no other option but to select
for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, instead of an ordinary appeal under which between the documents presented by the parties carries greater weight in
Rule 41.—In the case at bar, it is clear that when the case was appealed to the RTC, proving its claim. The documents presented by petitioner were sourced from the
the latter took cognizance of the case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, tax assessor’s office, whereas the documents presented by respondent were sourced
not its original jurisdiction. Hence, any further appeal from the RTC Decision must from the land management bureau. The answer is very apparent and needs little
conform to the provisions of the Rules of Court dealing with said matter. On this discussion. To this Court’s mind, the presence of the cadastral map, which was
score, Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides: “Sec. 2. Modes of appeal.— approved by the Director of Lands, should be given more weight than the
(a) Ordinary appeal.—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the documents sourced by petitioner from the assessor’s office. Said map was approved
Regional Trial Court on March 17, 1986, which was approximately 10 years before the controversy in
_______________ hand developed. Hence, the same should be controlling in the absence of proof that
* THIRD DIVISION. such document is invalid or inaccurate. As a matter of fact, notwithstanding the
58 hearing committee’s recommendation to rule in favor of petitioner, the committee
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED itself stated in its report that the cadastral map submitted by respondent was
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan authentic.
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of Same; Same; Same; Same; Between a geodetic engineer and a tax assessor, the
appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from conclusion is inevitable that it is the former’s certification as to the location of
and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be properties in dispute that is controlling, absent any finding of abuse of discretion.—
required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate It is undisputed that the Land Management Bureau is the principal government
appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal agency tasked with the survey of lands, and thus, more weight should be given to
shall be filed and served in like manner. (b) Petition for review.—The appeal the documents relating to its official tasks which are presumed to be done in the
to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the ordinary course of business. Between a geodetic engineer and a tax assessor, the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in conclusion is inevitable that it is the former’s certification as to the location of
accordance with Rule 42.” Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that petitioner properties in dispute that is controlling, absent any finding of abuse of discretion.
has availed itself of the wrong remedy. Since the RTC tried the case in the exercise As correctly observed by respondent and the RTC, the duty of provincial and
of its appellate jurisdiction, petitioner should have filed a petition for review under municipal assessors is primarily the assessment of taxes and not the survey of
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, instead of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The law lands.60
is clear in this respect. 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same; Local Government Units; Territorial Boundary Disputes; Procedural Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
Rules and Technicalities; Notwithstanding petitioner’s wrong mode of appeal, the Same; Same; The determination as to whether the properties in dispute are
Court of Appeals should not have so easily dismissed the petition, considering that within a certain jurisdiction is not a decision to be made by the populace.—
Page 1 of 6
Petitioner alludes to a petition/resolution allegedly of persons residing in the 5 Id., at pp. 48-49.
properties in dispute to the effect they are under the jurisdiction of petitioner. On 6 Id.
this note, this Court agrees with the observation of the RTC that the determination 7 SEC. 119. Appeal.—Within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules
as to whether the properties in dispute are within a certain jurisdiction is not a of Court, any party may elevate the decision of the sanggunianconcerned to the
decision to be made by the populace, to wit: “x x x In simple language, the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area in dispute. The
population follows the territory and not vice versa. It is the determination of the Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within one (1) year from the filing
ambit and sphere of the land area as culled in the approved barangay map that thereof. Pending final resolution of the disputed area prior to the dispute shall be
determines the jurisdiction of the barangay and not the decision of the populace. maintained and continued for all legal purposes.
To allow the latter will open endless litigation concerning disputes of jurisdiction.” 62
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of 62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Appeals. Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. On April 27, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision8 ruling in favor of respondent,
Pedro N. Belmi for petitioner. the dispositive portion of which states:
PERALTA, J.: “WHEREFORE, Resolution No. 75-96, Series of 1996 of the Sangguniang
Before this Court is a Petition for Review1 on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Bayan of Lemery, Batangas is hereby reversed and set aside and that Lot Nos. 4469
Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the October 17, 2002 Decision2 and August 25, and 6650, covered by and embraced in Tax Declaration Nos. 038-00315, 038-00316,
2003 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 70021. and 038-00317 of the Municipal Assessor of Lemery, Batangas, are hereby
The facts of the case: adjudged and declared as within the territorial jurisdiction of appellant Barangay
The controversy has its roots in a barangay jurisdiction dispute between Maguihan and, consequently, the Municipal Assessor of Lemery, Batangas and the
petitioner Barangay Sangalang and re- Provincial Assessor of the Province of Batangas are hereby ordered to make the
_______________ necessary corrections in its records implemental of this decision.
1 Rollo, pp. 8-34. SO ORDERED.”9
2 Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with Associate Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,10 which was, however, denied by
Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Regalado E. Maambong, the RTC in an Order11 dated December 20, 2000.
concurring, Id., at pp. 36-41. Aggrieved, petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal.12Later, petitioner filed an
3 Id., at pp. 44-45. Amended Notice of Appeal.
61 On October 17, 2002, the CA rendered a Decision13dismissing the appeal, the
VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 61 dispositive portion of which reads:
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan “IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the present appeal is ordered
spondent Barangay Maguihan, both situated in Lemery, Batangas. Specifically, DISMISSED. No cost.
the properties involved in the controversy are those covered by Tax Declaration SO ORDERED.”14
Nos. 038-00315, 038-00316, and 038-00317. Petitioner claims the lots to be within _______________
their territorial jurisdiction, whereas respondent maintains that they are within 8 Rollo, pp. 58-60.
their territorial boundary. 9 Id., at p. 60.
The case was lodged before the Sangguniang Bayan, which referred it to a 10 Id., at pp. 61-64.
hearing committee. In turn, the committee formed rendered a report 4 to the effect 11 Id., at pp. 65-66.
that the properties in dispute belonged to petitioner. The recommendation was 12 Id., at p. 67.
subsequently affirmed in Resolution No. 75-965 passed on November 14, 1996 by 13 Supra note 2.
the Sangguniang Bayan of Lemery, Batangas, the pertinent portion of which 14 Rollo, p. 41.
reads: 63
“Resolved, as it hereby resolves to recognize as it hereby recognizes the old VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 63
boundaries of Barangay Maguihan and Sangalang, specifically the areas which are Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
the subject of a barangay dispute covered by TD Nos. 038-00315, 038-00316 and In dismissing the appeal, the CA ruled that petitioner had availed itself of the
038-00317 are within the territorial jurisdiction of Barangay Sangalang.” 6 wrong remedy in filing a notice of appeal instead of filing a petition for review under
Respondent appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) pursuant Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The pertinent portions of said decision is hereunder
to Section 1197 of the Local Government Code, and the same was docketed as reproduced, to wit:
Barangay Jurisdiction Dispute No. 1. “Given the procedural mandates, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
_______________ Lemery, Batangas, dated April 27, 2000, was rendered by the Regional Trial Court
4 Rollo, pp. 46-47. in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Appropriately, under Section 22 of Batas
Page 2 of 6
Pambansa Blg. 129, decisions of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its This Court is bewildered by petitioner’s posture to tailor-fit the rules of court to
appellate jurisdiction, shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of its own convenience. The first and second assigned errors involve a question of the
petitions for review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.”15 pro-
The CA also ruled that if said appeal were to be considered as an ordinary _______________
appeal under Rule 41, it still should be dismissed, because the submitted 17 Id., at pp. 18-19.
appellant’s brief failed to contain a subject index and page references to the records 65
requirement in its Statement of Facts and Case and Argument, as provided for in VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 65
Section 13 of Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure.16 Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by priety of a strict application of the rules. It seems, however, that petitioner has
the CA in a Resolution dated August 25, 2003. taken a divergent stand on the said matter depending, on whether the same would
Hence, herein petition, with petitioner raising the following assignment of be favorable to his cause. As to his first assigned error, petitioner faults the CA for
errors, to wit: having strictly applied the rules of court notwithstanding his choice of the wrong
A. remedy; yet, on the other hand, as to his second assigned error, petitioner faults
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN the RTC for not having strictly applied the rules of court to respondent’s alleged
DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF PETITIONER SOLELY BASED ON THE failure to pay the corresponding docket fees.
RIGID AND STRICT APPLICATION OF TECHNICALITIES OVERRIDING Anent the issue of docket fees, this Court, in Yambao v.
SUB- Court of Appeals,18 declared:
_______________ “x x x Considering the importance and purpose of the remedy of appeal, an essential
15 Id., at pp. 39-40. part of our judicial system, courts are well-advised to proceed with caution so as
16 Id., at p. 40. not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-
64 litigant has the “amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED cause, freed from constraints of technicalities.” In line with this policy, we have
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan held that, in appealed cases, the failure to pay the appellate docket fee does not
STANTIAL JUSTICE, THAT IS, THE MERIT OF THE PETITIONER’S automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal x x x”
APPEAL, IN UTTER VIOLATION OF EXISTING AND WELL SETTLED A reading of the records of the case shows that it was only in his Supplemental
NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT. Motion for Reconsideration19 to the RTC Decision that petitioner first raised the
B. issue of non-payment of docket fees. Respondent, for his part, filed with the RTC
THE DECISION, ANNEX “I”, AND THE ORDER, ANNEX “K”, RENDERED an Opposition and Comment20 explaining his failure to file the corresponding
BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BATANGAS, BRANCH V, docket fees, thus:
LEMERY, BATANGAS, IN CIVIL CASE BOUNDARY JURISDICTIONAL _______________
DISPUTE NO. 01, REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE APPEALED 18 Yambao v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 712, 718-719; 346 SCRA 141, 146
RESOLUTION NO. 75-96, SERIES OF 1996, OF THE SANGGUNIANG (2000).
BAYAN OF LEMERY, BATANGAS, ARE NULL AND VOID BECAUSE 19 Records, Vol. 2.
RESPONDENT MAGUIHAN HAS NOT PERFECTED ITS APPEAL AND BY 20 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 5-6.
REASON THEREOF, THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED 66
APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
C. Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION “1. That as regards the claim of appellee that the docket fee has not been paid
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN by the appellant the same is correct. But the appellant who appealed the case by
SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN JUDGMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE himself and being a layman was not aware that a docket fee should be paid in case
JUDGMENT OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF LEMERY, BATANGAS, perfection of an appeal and no one from the court’s personnel reminds (sic) him of
WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE LIKEWISE IN this requirement. But in order not to sacrifice the ends of justice, the appellant is
DISREGARD OF THE EXISTING AND WELL SETTLED DECISIONS OF willing to pay the docket fee and other lawful charges necessary for the perfection
THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.17 of an appeal.”21
The Order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was silent as to the
At the outset, this Court shall first address the procedural issues raised by issue of the non-payment of docket fees; however, this Court deems that the RTC
petitioner. must have accepted the explanation given by respondent, otherwise, said court
would have dismissed the appeal and reconsidered its decision. The failure to pay
docket fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of an appeal, it being
Page 3 of 6
discretionary on the part of the appellate court to give it due course or not.22 This or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the
Court will then not interfere with matters addressed to the sound discretion of the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
RTC in the absence of proof that the exercise of such discretion was tainted with (b) Petition for review.—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
bias or prejudice, or made without due circumspection of the attendant decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
circumstances of the case.23 jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.”25
In any case, the more pressing issue is whether or not this Court should even Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that petitioner has availed itself of the
entertain petitioner’s appeal. wrong remedy. Since the RTC tried the case in the exercise of its appellate
By filing a Notice of Appeal assailing the RTC Decision, petitioner has availed jurisdiction, petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the
itself of the remedy provided for under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which provides Rules of Court, instead of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The law is clear in
for the ordinary mode of appeal. The CA, however, considered this respect.
_______________ In any case, as in the past, this Court has recognized the emerging trend
21 Id., at p. 5. towards a liberal construction of the Rules of Court. In Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB
22 Supra note 18. Leasing and Finance Corporation,26 this Court stated:
23 See Spouses Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 395; 346 SCRA 563 “Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most
(2000). mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put
67 an end to litigation and the parties’ right to due process. In numerous cases, this
VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 67 Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan demands of substantial justice and equity. In Aguam v. Court of Appeals, the Court
petitioner’s choice to be the wrong remedy and, forthwith, dismissed the petition. explained:
After an examination of relevant laws pertinent to herein petition, this Court _______________
finds that the CA was correct in holding that petitioner had availed itself of the 25 Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
wrong remedy. 26 G.R. No. 168115, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 333.
As correctly observed by the CA, under Section 118 of the Local Government 69
Code, the jurisdictional responsibility for settlement of boundary disputes between VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 69
and among local government units is to be lodged before the proper Sangguniang Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned, if it involves two or The court has the discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant’s
more barangays in the same city or municipality. Under Section 118(e) of the same appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty. The “discretion must
Code, if there is a failure of amicable settlement, the dispute shall be formally tried be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and
by the sanggunian concerned and shall decide the same within (60) days from the fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case.”
date of the certification referred to.24 Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that
Section 119 of the Local Government Code also provides that the decision of impede the cause of justice. The court’s primary duty is to render or dispense
the sanggunian concerned may be appealed to the RTC having jurisdiction over the justice. “A litigation is not a game of technicalities.” “Lawsuits, unlike duels,
area in dispute, within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court. are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its
In the case at bar, it is clear that when the case was appealed to the RTC, the proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief
latter took cognizance of the case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, not its enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts.” Litigations must be
original jurisdiction. Hence, any further appeal from the RTC Decision must decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party-litigant must
conform to the provisions of the Rules of Court dealing with said matter. On this be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination
score, Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides: of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus,
“Sec. 2. Modes of appeal.— dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the
_______________ policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and
24 Rollo, p. 39. the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense;
68 rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal
(a) Ordinary appeal.—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy
filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage
appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on of justice.”27
appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple
Page 4 of 6
 Thus, notwithstanding petitioner’s wrong mode of appeal, the CA should not Article 17, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
have so easily dismissed the petition, considering that the parties involved are local Government Code of 1991, outlines the procedures governing boundary disputes,
government units and that what is involved is the determination of their respective including the documents that should be attached to the petition, to wit:
territorial jurisdictions. In the same “Art. 17. Procedures for Settling Boundary Disputes.—The following
_______________ procedures shall govern the settlement of boundary disputes:
27 Ong Lim Sing Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation, supra, at 343- xxxx
344. (c) Documents attached to petition—The petition shall be accompanied
70 by:
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1. Duly authenticated copy of the law or statute creating the LGU or
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan any other document showing proof of creation of the LGU;
vein, the CA’s strict reliance on the requirements under Section 13 of Rule 44 of _______________
the 1997 Rules of Procedure relating to subject index and page references in an 32 Id., at p. 40.
appellant’s brief is, to stress, putting a premium on technicalities. While the 33 Id., at p. 41.
purpose of Section 13, Rule 44, is to present to the appellate court in the most TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
helpful light, the factual and legal antecedents of a case on appeal, 28 said rule I hereby certify that the true location of Lot No. 6649 and Lot No. 6650 is in the
should not be strictly applied considering that petitioner’s brief before the CA territorial jurisdiction of Barangay Maguihan, Lemery Batangas based on
contained only 9 pages, the records of the case consisted only of a few documents Cadastral Map. No. 4 with a latitude of 13-52-45 and longitude of 120-54-30 duly
and pleadings, and there was no testimonial evidence. approved by the Regional Director of Land on March 17, 1986.
Moving on to the substantive merits of the case, what it basically involves is (Sgd.) Edelberto T. Cadiz
adjudication as to which barangay the lots in dispute belong. Ideally, herein DENR Geodetic Engineer I
petition should be remanded to the CA, as the same inherently involves a question 72
of fact. However, since this case has been pending for almost 13 years now, this 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Court deems it best to once and for all settle the controversy. Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
Petitioner presents the following documents to prove its claim: 2. Provincial, city, municipal, or barangay map, as the case may be,
1. Copy of a certification from the Office of the Provincial Assessor stating duly certified by the LMB.
that the area covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 038-00315, 038-00316 and 038-00317 3. Technical description of the boundaries of the LGUs concerned;
are all within the territorial jurisdiction of Barangay Sangalang, Lemery, 4. Written certification of the provincial, city, or municipal assessor,
Batangas;29 as the case may be, as to territorial jurisdiction over the disputed area
2. Copies of Tax Declaration Nos. 038-00315, 038-00316 and 038-00317;30 and according to records in custody;
3. Old Map of Barangay Sangalang.31 5. Written declarations or sworn statements of the people residing in
_______________ the disputed area; and
28 De Liano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142316, November 22, 2001, 370 6. Such other documents or information as may be required by
SCRA 349, 361. the sanggunian hearing the dispute.”
29 Records, p. 15. The RTC observed that neither of the parties satisfied the requirement that all
30 Id., at pp. 17-19. the enumerated documents must be attached to the petition. Hence, like the RTC,
31 Id., at p. 20. this Court is left with no other option but to select which between the documents
71 presented by the parties carries greater weight in proving its claim. The documents
VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 71 presented by petitioner were sourced from the tax assessor’s office, whereas the
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan documents presented by respondent were sourced from the land management
Respondent, for its part, presents the following documents: bureau. The answer is very apparent and needs little discussion.
1. Certified copy of the cadastral map of the Lemery Cadastre, which was To this Court’s mind, the presence of the cadastral map, which was approved
approved on March 17, 1983 by the Director of Lands, Department of Environment by the Director of Lands, should be given more weight than the documents sourced
and Natural Resources;32and by petitioner from the assessor’s office. Said map was approved on March 17, 1986,
2. Certification of the Community Environment and Natural Resources which was approximately 10 years before the controversy in hand developed.
Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources dated September 9, Hence, the same should be controlling in the absence of proof that such document
1997.33 is invalid or inaccurate. As a matter of fact, notwithstanding the hearing
committee’s recommendation to rule in favor of
73
VOL. 609, December 23, 2009 73
Page 5 of 6
 Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan SO ORDERED.
petitioner, the committee itself stated in its report that the cadastral map Corona (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Del Castillo,** JJ., concur.
submitted by respondent was authentic.34 _______________
Moreover, in ruling against petitioner, the RTC also gave greater weight to the 36 Id., at p. 66.
documents submitted by respondent, thus: ** Additional member per Special Order No. 805 dated December 4, 2009.
“x x x This Court is mindful of the fact and takes judicial notice that the Land © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Management Bureau is manned by geodetic engineers with sufficient expertise and
is the cognizant agency of government charged with the responsibility of matters
respecting surveys of land. This Court likewise takes into consideration that the
duty of the provincial and municipal assessors are primarily assessments of
taxes.”35
This Court shares the view of the RTC. It is undisputed that the Land
Management Bureau is the principal government agency tasked with the survey of
lands, and thus, more weight should be given to the documents relating to its
official tasks which are presumed to be done in the ordinary course of business.
Between a geodetic engineer and a tax assessor, the conclusion is inevitable that it
is the former’s certification as to the location of properties in dispute that is
controlling, absent any finding of abuse of discretion. As correctly observed by
respondent and the RTC, the duty of provincial and municipal assessors is
primarily the assessment of taxes and not the survey of lands.
Lastly, petitioner alludes to a petition/resolution allegedly of persons residing
in the properties in dispute to the effect they are under the jurisdiction of petitioner.
On this
_______________
34 Rollo, p. 46. “x x x Sa pagdalo niya ay daladala ang isang mapa na galing
daw sa CENRO/LMB na sinabi niyang opisyal daw at authenticated. Ang komite
ay walang question sa authenticity ng mapa, x x x.
35 Rollo, p. 60.
74
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan
note, this Court agrees with the observation of the RTC that the determination as
to whether the properties in dispute are within a certain jurisdiction is not a
decision to be made by the populace, to wit:
“x x x In simple language, the population follows the territory and not vice versa. It
is the determination of the ambit and sphere of the land area as culled in the
approved barangay map that determines the jurisdiction of the barangay and not
the decision of the populace. To allow the latter will open endless litigation
concerning disputes of jurisdiction.”36
In sum, this Court does not belittle the documents presented by petitioner or
the duties of the provincial and municipal assessors; however, since the documents
presented by respondent are sourced from the very agency primarily tasked with
the survey of lands, more credence must be given to the same in the absence of
proof that would cast doubt on the contents thereof.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
October 17, 2002 Decision and August 25, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 70021 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April 27,
2000 Decision and December 20, 2000 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Lemery,
Batangas, in Barangay Jurisdiction Dispute No. 1, are hereby AFFIRMED.
Page 6 of 6