MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

FACTS:
Private respondent filed with public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a “Petition to
Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative” (Delfin
Petition) wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order (1) Fixing the time and dates for signature
gathering all over the country; (2) Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the attached
“Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapers of general and local circulation; and
(3) Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to assist Petitioners and
volunteers, in establishing signing stations at the time and on the dates designated for the purpose. Delfin
asserted that R.A. No. 6735 governs the conduct of initiative to amend the Constitution and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300 is a valid exercise of delegated powers. Petitioners contend that R.A. No. 6375
failed to be an enabling law because of its deficiency and inadequacy, and COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 is void.
ISSUE:
Whether or not (1) the absence of subtitle for such initiative is not fatal, (2) R.A. No. 6735 is adequate to
cover the system of initiative on amendment to the Constitution, and (3) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
is valid. .
HELD:
NO. Petition (for prohibition) was granted. The conspicuous silence in subtitles simply means that the
main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. R.A. No. 6735 failed to
provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation. Provisions COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution are
declared void.
RATIO:
Subtitles are intrinsic aids for construction and interpretation. R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide any subtitle
on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are specifically provided
for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution was left to some future law.
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. The petition then is
the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The
only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe
the form of the petition; (2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the
total number of registered voters in each legislative district; (3) to assist, through its election registrars, in
the establishment of signature stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on
the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’ identification cards used in the
immediately preceding election.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No.
2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The respondent Commission
must have known that the petition does not fall under any of the actions or proceedings under the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it did not assign to the
petition a docket number. Hence, the said petition was merely entered as UND, meaning, undocketed.
That petition was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by the
Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin and the
oppositors to file their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
PUNO, concurring and dissenting
I join the ground-breaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Davide insofar as it orders the
COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition. I regret, however, I cannot share the view that R.A. No. 6735
and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are legally defective and cannot implement the people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect to the Pedrosas has no leg to stand
on and should be dismissed. (MELO and MENDOZA concur)
VITUG, concurring and dissenting
I vote for granting the instant petition before the Court and for clarifying that the TRO earlier issued by
the Court did not prescribe the exercise by the Pedrosas of their right to campaign for constitutional
amendments.
[T]he TRO earlier issued by the Court which, consequentially, is made permanent under
the ponencia should be held to cover only the Delfin petition and must not be so understood as having
intended or contemplated to embrace the signature drive of the Pedrosas. The grant of such a right is
clearly implicit in the constitutional mandate on people initiative.
FRANCISCO, concurring and dissenting
There is no question that my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Davide has prepared a scholarly and well-
written ponencia. Nonetheless, I cannot fully subscribe to his view that R. A. No. 6735 is inadequate to
cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. (MELO and MENDOZA concur)
PANGANIBAN, concurring and dissenting
Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing for the majority, holds that:
(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the “initiatory”
Delfin Petition.
(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to “be directly proposed by the people through initiative,”
there is no implementing law for the purpose. RA 6735 is “incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.”
(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2330, “insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.”
I concur with the first item above. Until and unless an initiatory petition can show the required number of
signatures — in this case, 12% of all the registered voters in the Philippines with at least 3% in every
legislative district — no public funds may be spent and no government resources may be used in an
initiative to amend the Constitution. Verily, the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition absent such
signatures. However, I dissent most respectfully from the majority’s two other rulings.

047 – Calanza
Calanza v. PICOP (2009)

Petitioner: Leonora P. Calanza, Eva M. Amoren, Gene P. Roño, Sanny C. Calanza, Gregorio C. Yncierto
II, and Angel M. Puyo are approved applicants of a small-scale mining permits for the purpose of
extracting gold by the Governor of Davao Oriental

Respondent: Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), owner of the TLAs over the land
in which petitioners are to mine gold.

Quick Facts: Calanza was issued a mining permit by DavaoOriental to mine in the land occupied by
PICOP. PICOPclaims that the land it own is situated in Surigaodel Sur, not in Davao Oriental. Calanza
filed a case in the RTC.

Issue: WON PICOP’s claims that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the dispute since the area is between 2
municipalities of 2different provinces is valid. - Yes

Held: The RTC has no original jurisdiction over the dispute.There is boundary dispute when a portion or
thewhole of the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by 2 or more LGUs.Sec. 118 of the LGC provides
that boundary disputesinvolving municipalities or component cities of differentprovinces shall be jointly
referred for settlement to the sanggunians of the provinces concerned.While Sec. 119 of the LGC gives a
dissatisfied party an avenue to question the decision of the Sanggunian tothe RTC having jurisdiction
over the area. The RTC cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the case sincethere was no petition that
was filed and decided by theSangguniangPanlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigaodel Sur.

Other facts (from https://www.scribd.com/doc/240003606/031-Calanza-v-PICOP#download)

FACTS:

1. Petitioners having their applications for small-scale mining permits approved and allowed by the
Governor of Davao Oriental negotiated entry to the mining site with the PICOP.

2. The problem arose when PICOP prohibited them to enter into the mining area on the grounds
that:

• it has exclusive right of occupation, possession and control over the area being a logging
concessionaire

• The mining permits were defective since the mining area is situated in Surigaodel Sur.

3. Petitioners filed a complaint against PICOP before the RTC praying that it or its agent be
enjoined from preventing and prohibiting the petitioners from entering into the mining site.

4. PICOP Contends:

• RTC of Davao does not have jurisdiction over the complaint since the disputed area is situated in
the Province of Surigao del Sur.
• The petitioners permits are void since it violated sec. 5 of RA 7076, which allegedly prohibits the
issuance of mining permits over areas covered by forest rights such as TLAs or forest reservation unless
their status is withdrawn by the competent authority

5. The RTC rule in favor of the petitioners ruling that:

• The mining area is within the territory of the province of Davao thus the governor is vested with
the power to issue the small-scale permits.

6. The CA however reversed the decision of the RTC, ruling that:

• The RTC erred in passing upon the issue of the boundary dispute between the provinces of Davao
Oriental and Surigaodel Sur since the resolution of the boundary dispute primarily resides with the
sangguniangpanlalawigans of the two provinces and the RTC has only appellate jurisdiction over the case,
pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991.

• The governor has no power to issue small-scale mining permits since such authority under
Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7076 is vested with the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board.

7. Hence the petition for review under Rule 45.

ISSUE:

1) WON RTC has jurisdiction to determine the boundary dispute with regard to the contention of
PICOP

2) WON the small-scale mining permits are valid.

HELD:

1) No, The Supreme affirmed the CA. RTC has no jurisdiction on the boundary dispute between
Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur, its decision is a total nullity. There being no boundary dispute
between LGUs.

2) No, the governor has no authority to issue mining permits pursuant to the prevailing statute of RA
7076.

RATIO:

1) There is boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of the territorial area of a Local
Government Unit (LGU) is claimed by two or more LGUs.7 In settling boundary disputes, Section 118 of
the 1991 Local Government Code provides:

Sec. 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of Boundary Dispute. – Boundary disputes between
and among local government units shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. To this end:

(a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more barangays in the same city or municipality shall be
referred for settlement to the sangguniangpanlungsod or sangguniangbayan concerned.
(b) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities within the same province shall be referred
for settlement to the sangguniangpanlalawigan concerned.

(c) Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of different provinces shall be jointly
referred for settlement to the sanggunians of the provinces concerned.

(d) Boundary disputes involving a component city or municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized
city on the other, or two (2) or more highly urbanized cities, shall be jointly referred for settlement to the
respective sanggunians of the parties.

(e) In the event the sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within sixty (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 sixty (60) days from the
date of the certification referred to above.1avvphi1

Under paragraph (c) of Section 118, the settlement of a boundary dispute involving municipalities or
component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective
sanggunians or the provincial boards of the different provinces involved. Section 119 of the Local
Government Code gives a dissatisfied party an avenue to question the decision of the sanggunian to the
RTC having jurisdiction over the area, viz:

Section 119. Appeal. - 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 x xx.

Article 17, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing The Local Government Code of 1991
outlines the procedures governing boundary disputes, which succinctly includes the filing of the proper
petition, and in case of failure to amicably settle, a formal trial will be conducted and a decision will be
rendered thereafter. An aggrieved party can appeal the decision of the sanggunian to the appropriate RTC.
Said rules and regulations state:

Article 17. Procedures for Settling Boundary Disputes. – The following procedures shall govern the
settlement of boundary disputes:

(a) Filing of petition - The sanggunian concerned may initiate action by filing a petition, in the form of a
resolution, with the sanggunian having jurisdiction over the dispute.

(b) Contents of petition - The petition shall state the grounds, reasons or justifications therefore.

(c) Documents attached to petition - The petition shall be accompanied by:

1. Duly authenticated copy of the law or statute creating the LGU or any other document showing proof
of creation of the LGU;

2. Provincial, city, municipal, or barangay map, as the case may be, duly certified by the LMB.

3. Technical description of the boundaries of the LGUs concerned;

4. Written certification of the provincial, city, or municipal assessor, as the case may be, as to territorial
jurisdiction over the disputed area according to records in custody;

5. Written declarations or sworn statements of the people residing in the disputed area; and

6. Such other documents or information as may be required by the sanggunian hearing the dispute.

(d) Answer of adverse party - Upon receipt by the sanggunian concerned of the petition together with the
required documents, the LGU or LGUs complained against shall be furnished copies thereof and shall be
given fifteen (15) working days within which to file their answers.

(e) Hearing - Within five (5) working days after receipt of the answer of the adverse party, the
sanggunianshall hear the case and allow the parties concerned to present their respective evidences.

(f) Joint hearing - When two or more sanggunians jointly hear a case, they may sit en banc or designate
their respective representatives. Where representatives are designated, there shall be an equal number of
representatives from each sanggunian. They shall elect from among themselves a presiding officer and a
secretary. In case of disagreement, selection shall be by drawing lot.

(g) Failure to settle - In the event the sanggunian fails to amicably settle the dispute within sixty (60) days
from the date such dispute was referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to the effect and copies
thereof shall be furnished the parties concerned.

(h) Decision - Within sixty (60) days from the date the certification was issued, the dispute shall be
formally tried and decided by the sanggunian concerned. Copies of the decision shall, within fifteen (15)
days from the promulgation thereof, be furnished the parties concerned, DILG, local assessor,
COMELEC, NSO, and other NGAs concerned.

(i) Appeal - 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
dispute by filing therewith the appropriate pleading, stating among others, the nature of the dispute, the
decision of the sanggunian concerned and the reasons for appealing therefrom. The Regional Trial Court
shall decide the case within one (1) year from the filing thereof. Decisions on boundary disputes
promulgated jointly by two (2) or more sangguniangpanlalawigans shall be heard by the Regional Trial
Court of the province which first took cognizance of the dispute.

The records of the case reveal that the instant case was initiated by petitioners against respondents
predicated on the latter’s refusal to allow the former entry into the disputed mining areas. This is not a
case where the sangguniangpanlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigaodel Sur jointly rendered a
decision resolving the boundary dispute of the two provinces and the same decision was elevated to the
RTC. Clearly, the RTC cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the case since there was no petition that
was filed and decided by the sangguniangpanlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigaodel Sur. Neither
can the RTC assume original jurisdiction over the boundary dispute since the Local Government Code
allocates such power to the sangguniangpanlalawigans of Davao Oriental and Surigaodel Sur. Since the
RTC has no original jurisdiction on the boundary dispute between Davao Oriental and Surigaodel Sur, its
decision is a total nullity. We have repeatedly ruled that a judgment rendered by a court without
jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked anytime.8 It creates no rights and produces no effect. In
fact it remains a basic fact in law that the choice of the proper forum is crucial as the decision of a court
or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment
at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to
it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.

2) Petitioners’ small-scale mining permits are legally questionable. Under Presidential Decree No.
1899, applications of small-scale miners are processed with the Director of the Mines and Geo-Sciences
Bureau. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7076, which took effect10 on 18 July 1991, approval of the
applications for mining permits and for mining contracts are vested in the Provincial/City Mining
Regulatory Board. Composed of the DENR representative, a representative from the small-scale mining
sector, a representative from the big-scale mining industry and a representative from an environmental
group, this body is tasked to approve small-scale mining permits and contracts.

In the case under consideration, petitioners filed their small-scale mining permits on 23 August 1991,
making them bound by the procedures provided for under the applicable and prevailing statute, Republic
Act No. 7076. Instead of processing and obtaining their permits from the Provincial Mining Regulatory
Board, petitioners were able to get the same from the governor of Davao del Norte. Considering that the
governor is without legal authority to issue said mining permits, the same permits are null and void.

Province of Antique vs Calabocal

G.R. No. 209146 / June 8, 2016 / Carpio, CJ./ Locgov – Settlement of Boundary Disputes/JMB

NATURE Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order

PETITIONERS PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE AND MUNICIPALITY OF CALUYA

RESPONDENTSHON. RECTO A. CALABOCAL, JUDGE-DESIGNATE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,

BRANCH 43, ROXAS, ORIENTAL MINDORO, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, AND
MUNICIPALITY OF BULALACAO

SUMMARY. The provinces of Antique and Oriental Mindoro are both

claiming jurisdiction over Liwagao Island. Petitioners claim that the case
involves a boundary dispute and as per the LGC, RTC does not have
jurisdiction. The RTC ruled that it has jurisdiction and that the case is one of
recovery and not a boundary dispute. The SC ruled that the RTC has
jurisdiction but the case is a boundary dispute as defined by the LGC.
DOCTRINE.A boundary dispute may involve "a portion or the whole" of a
local government unit's territorial area. Nothing in this provision excludes a
dispute over an island. So long as the island is being claimed by different
local government units, there exists a boundary dispute.LGC 118 (c)
Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of different
provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the Sanggunians of the
provinces concerned.
As the Court has previously ruled, it is "only upon the failure of these
intermediary steps will resort to the RTC follow, as specifically provided in
Section 119 of the [Local Government Code.]"

FACTS.

 Sometime between the years 1978 and 1979, Mayor Bago, then Mayor of the Municipality of
Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, agreed to lend the administration of Liwagao Island to Mayor Lim, then
Mayor of the Municipality of Caluya, Antique.
 The agreement was made orally and without executing any formal documents to this effect. The
condition attached to the agreement was that the island would be returned upon termination of either
party's terms in office.
 The terms of both mayors ended in 1987. Mayor Lim allegedly returned Liwagao Island to the Mun.
of Bulalacao. However, the Mun. of Caluya continued to exercise administration over the island.
 Apr 2002: Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Oriental Mindoro passed a resolution confirming its
jurisdictional rights and dominion over Liwagao Island. However, according to respondents, the
Municipality of Caluya and the Province of Antique continued to claim and exercise authority over
Liwagao Island (collecting real property taxes).
 Feb 2012: SP of Oriental Mindoro passed a resolution calling for the Conduct of a Joint Session
between the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Oriental Mindoro and the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the Province of Antique for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Claim over the Island of
Liwagao.
 The Vice Governor of Antique was willing to conduct a joint session to settle the boundary dispute
but the SP of Antique issued a resolution informing the Mindoro that it was not amenable to any form
of settlement over the jurisdiction of Liwagao Island as the same rightfully belongs to their province.
 SP of Oriental Mindoro issued a resolution directing the Provincial Legal Office to file the necessary
legal action to claim Liwagao Island.
 Antique: the maps of [NAMRIA] and DENR show Liwagao Island to be part of Antique.All national
agencies of the government have always considered the island to be part of Caluya. Likewise, the
people living there have always recognized Caluya's jurisdiction over the island as evidenced by the
fact that they have registered their births, paid real property taxes and voted in Antique.
: lack of jurisdiction of the RTC. They argued that "under LGC 118 par(c), jurisdiction over
boundary disputes between municipalities of different provinces is vested on the Sangguniang
Panlalawigans of the provinces involved."
 RTC: Defense of lack of jurisdiction is denied. This is not a boundary dispute but for recovery.
 Petitioners:This case involves a boundary dispute. The RTC erred in assuming jurisdiction over
respondents' petition because "the SPs of both the provinces of Antique and Oriental Mindoro, sitting
jointly, have primary, original and exclusive jurisdiction over this boundary dispute.They contend that
under the LGC, "a boundary dispute between municipalities of different provinces shall be referred
first for settlement to the sanggunians of the provinces jointly" and if no settlement is reached, the
case shall be jointly tried by the sanggunians concerned. After trial, the aggrieved party may appeal
the decision to the RTC having jurisdiction over the area. The RTC "cannot exercise appellate
jurisdiction over [respondents' petition] since there was no petition [for the adjudication of the
boundary dispute] that was filed and decided by the SPs of Antique and Oriental Mindoro.
 Respondents:the RTC has jurisdiction over their petition because the same is not an appeal but an "an
original legal action to recover and get back the Island of Liwagao.The boundary lines between the
Province of Oriental Mindoro and the Province of Antique "[have] long been set forth and known to
the parties."Factual circumstances has rendered it impossible for the SPs to resolve the issue
 involving the Island of Liwagao. Prior to filing the petition before the RTC, it had already made
several attempts to "amicably discuss the issue on jurisdictional claim."However, the SP of Antique
categorically proclaimed that it was not amenable to any form of settlement.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON RTC has jurisdiction over the respondents' petition for recovery of property and declaration of
territorial and political jurisdiction/dominion over Liwagao Island.YES.

The Case involves a boundary dispute:

Respondents: this case stems from an original action for "recovery/declaration of territorial and political
jurisdiction/dominion" and not a boundary dispute; hence, it is not within the purview of LGC 118.

SC:

 The LGC IRR defines a boundary dispute as follows: There is a boundary dispute when a portion or
the whole of the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by two or more LGUs.Boundary disputes
between or among LGUs shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably1.
 Based on this definition, a boundary dispute may involve "a portion or the whole" of a local
government unit's territorial area. Nothing in this provision excludes a dispute over an island. So
long as the island is being claimed by different local government units, there exists a boundary
dispute.
 Respondents are asserting their lawful jurisdiction over Liwagao Island as against another local
government unit that currently has jurisdiction over the same. Therefore, whether the case is
denominated as recovery of possession or claim of ownership, respondents' objective is the same:
for respondents to regain their alleged territorial jurisdiction over Liwagao Island. Respondent itself
acknowledges that the conflict is a "boundary row" between itself and the Province of Antique. As
stated in Resolution No. 1454-2012, the Province of Oriental Mindoro claims to "adhere to the
basic principle of amicably settling said boundary dispute, as laid down in the provision of the
Local Government Code of 1991[.]" Thus, they are bound by their own assertions and cannot now
claim that the conflict does not involve a boundary dispute.

Settlement of Boundary Dispute Governed by LGC 1991

 Under LGC 118 and 1192: "the respective legislative councils of the contending local government
units have jurisdiction over their boundary disputes."

1LGC IRR Rule III Art 15

2SECTION 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of Boundary Dispute. - Boundary disputes between and among local government units shall, as much
as possible, be settled amicably. To this end: (a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more Barangays in the same city or municipality shall be referred for
settlement to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned. (b) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities within the same
province shall be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned. (c) Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of
different provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces concerned. (d) Boundary disputes involving a component city or
municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the other, or two (2) or more highly urbanized cities, shall be jointly referred for settlement to the
respective Sanggunians of the parties. (e) In the event the Sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from the date the dispute was
 Specifically: LGC 118 (c) Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of
different provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces
concerned.
 As the Court has previously ruled, it is "only upon the failure of these intermediary steps will resort to
the RTC follow, as specifically provided in Section 119 of the [Local Government Code.]"
 The specific procedure is outlined in the IRR of the LGC3.

RTC has jurisdicition

 Respondents followed procedure in the LGC.They took all the necessary steps to settle the dispute
within the procedure set out in the law, and by all indication, was prepared to see the matter thru in
order to lay the issue to rest.
 Petitioners failed to perform theirresponsibility under the same law, leaving respondents with no other
recourse but to bring the matter to court. Petitioners cannot demand that respondents now follow the
procedure when they themselves have made it impossible for any party to follow the same. The
Province of Antique's Resolution dated 25 May 2012, stating that the Province of Antique was not
amenable to any form of settlement, effectively blocked any way to continue following the steps in
the IRR.
 Respondents' petition before the RTC must be upheld. Otherwise, they will be left without any
recourse or legal remedy to assert their claim over Liwagao Island. Such uncertainty is unacceptable,
as the fate of the island's residents rest in the immediate resolution of the dispute.

DECISION.

RTC is ORDERED to hear and decide the case with dispatch.

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 sixty (60) days from the date of the certification referred to above.
SECTION 119. Appeal. - 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 (1) year from the filing thereof.
Pending final resolution of the disputed area prior to the dispute shall be maintained and continued for all legal purposes.
3 RULE III Settlement of Boundary Disputes x x x x ARTICLE 17. Procedures for Settling Boundary Disputes. — The following procedures shall govern the settlement

of boundary disputes:
(a) Filing of petition — The sanggunian concerned may initiate action by filing a petition, in the form of a resolution, with the sanggunian having jurisdiction over
the dispute. x x x
(g) Failure to settle — In the event the sanggunian fails to amicably settle the dispute within sixty (60) days from the date such dispute was referred thereto, it shall
issue a certification to that effect and copies thereof shall be furnished the parties concerned.
(h) Decision — Within sixty (60) days from the date the certification was issued, the dispute shall be formally tried and decided by the sanggunian concerned.
Copies of the decision shall, within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation thereof, be furnished the parties concerned, DILG, local assessor, COMELEC, NSO, and
other NGAs concerned.
(i) Appeal — 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 dispute by filing therewith the appropriate pleading, stating among others, the nature of the dispute, the decision of the
sanggunian concerned and the reasons for appealing therefrom. The Regional Trial Court shall decide the case within one (1) year from the filing thereof. Decisions
on boundary disputes promulgated jointly by two (2) or more sangguniang panlalawigans shall be heard by the Regional Trial Court of the province which first took
cognizance of the dispute.