Barangay Sangalang Vs Barangay Maguihan

RULE 41 SECTION 2
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 159792. December 23, 2009.]
petitioner Barangay Sangalang and
respondent Barangay Maguihan
BARANGAY SANGALANG, represented by its Chairman DANTE C. MARCELLANA, petitioner, vs. BARANGAY MAGUIHAN,

represented by its Chairman ARNULFO VILLAREZ, respondent.
Facts:
 The controversy has its roots in a barangay jurisdiction dispute between Barangay Sangalang and Barangay Maguihan, both
situated in Batangas. Barangay Sangalang claims the lots to be within their territorial jurisdiction, whereas Barangay Maguihan
maintains that they are within their territorial boundary.
 The case was lodged before the Sangguniang Bayan, which referred it to a hearing committee. In turn, the committee formed
rendered a report to the effect that the properties in dispute belonged to Barangay Sangalang. The recommendation was
subsequently affirmed in Resolution passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of Lemery, Batangas.
 Barangay Maguihan appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) pursuant to Section 119 of the Local Government
Code, and the same was docketed as Barangay Jurisdiction Dispute No. 1. the RTC rendered a Decision ruling in favor of
respondent.
 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the RTC in an Order dated December 20, 2000.
 Aggrieved, Barangay Sangalang then filed a Notice of Appeal. Later, Barangay Sangalang filed an Amended Notice of Appeal.
 On October 17, 2002, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing the appeal. In dismissing the appeal, the CA ruled that petitioner
had availed itself of the wrong remedy in filing a notice of appeal instead of filing a petition for review under Rule 42 of
the Rules of Court.
Controversy:
By filing a Notice of Appeal assailing the RTC Decision, petitioner has availed itself of the remedy provided for under Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court, which provides for the ordinary mode of appeal.
The CA, however, considered petitioner's choice to be the wrong remedy and, forthwith, dismissed the petition.
Issue: Whether or not Barangay Sangalang availed of the correct remedy. NO
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals was correct in holding that Barangay Sangalang had availed itself of the wrong remedy.
As correctly observed by the CA, under Section 118 of the Local Government Code, the jurisdictional responsibility for settlement of
boundary disputes between and among local government units is to be lodged before the proper Sangguniang
Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned, if it involves two or more barangays in the same city or municipality. Under Section
118 (e) of the same Code, if there is a failure of amicable settlement, the dispute shall be formally tried by
the sanggunian concerned and shall decide the same within (60) days from the date of the certification referred to.
Section 119 of the Local Government Code also provides that the decision of the sanggunian concerned may be appealed to the RTC
having jurisdiction over the area in dispute, within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.
In the case at bar, it is clear that when the case was appealed to the RTC, the latter took cognizance of the case in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, not its original jurisdiction. Hence, any further appeal from the RTC Decision must conform to the provisions of
the Rules of Court dealing with said matter. On this score, Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. —
(a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases
of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served
in like manner.
(b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that petitioner has availed itself of the wrong remedy. Since the RTC tried the case in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, instead of
an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The law is clear in this respect.

Barangay Sangalang Vs Barangay Maguihan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barangay Sangalang Vs Barangay Maguihan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barangay Sangalang Vs Barangay Maguihan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 41 SECTION 2

[G.R. No. 159792. December 23, 2009.]

petitioner Barangay Sangalang and

respondent Barangay Maguihan

BARANGAY SANGALANG, represented by its Chairman DANTE C. MARCELLANA, petitioner, vs. BARANGAY MAGUIHAN,

Issue: Whether or not Barangay Sangalang availed of the correct remedy. NO

Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. —

You might also like