4. Settlement of Boundary Disputes

Situation v. Where to Settle

According to Section 118 of the Local Government Code, boundary disputes between municipalities within the same province should be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned; those involving municipalities of different provinces should be jointly referred to the sanggunians of the provinces concerned, and not to the Regional Trial Court. (Municipality of Sta. Fe v. Municipality of Aritao, G.R. No. 140474, September 21, 2007).

However, there is no law providing for the jurisdiction of any court or quasi-judicial body over the settlement of a boundary dispute between a municipality and an independent component city, thus, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate it. Under Section 19 (6) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. (Municipality of Kananga v. Madrona. G.R. No. 141375, 2003).

In the event the Sangunnian fails to effect an amicable settlement within 60 days from the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be formally tried by the Sanggunian concerned which shall decide the issue within 60 days from the date of the certification. Within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party may elevate the decision of the Sanggunian concerned to the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area in dispute. The Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal within one year from the filing thereof. Pending final resolution of the dispute, the status of the disputed area prior to the dispute shall be maintained and continued for all legal purposes.

The technical description, containing the metes and bounds of the municipality’s territory as stated in an executive order creating the said municipality, is binding. (Municipality of Jimenez v. Baz, Jr., G.R. No. 105746, December 2, 1996).

Updated: Courts resolving an LGU boundary dispute may determine its factual metes and bounds or natural boundaries, but may not create or substantially alter LGU territory. (City of Caloocan v. City of Malabon, G.R. No. 269159, 4 November 2024).