TAX REV DIGEST PART 2 (GROUP 4)

______________________________________________________________________________

CASE # 4 MUNICIPALITY OF FAMY, LAGUNA VS MUNICIPALITY OF SINILOAN, LAGUNA

GR NO. 203806; FEB 10, 2020

PONENTE: JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN

FACTS:

CA affirmed the RTC’s order granting the Municipality of Siniloan, Laguna’s application for writ
of preliminary injunction and subsequently denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Municipality of Famy, Laguna.

1) Both municipalities of Famy and Siniloadn are public corporations existing under
Philippine laws.
2) Famy was incorporated through RA 939 series of 1903. However, Famy was separated
and became another entity through EO 72, series of 1909.
3) This led to boundary dispute between the 2 municipalities over 2 barangays, Barangay
Kapatan and Barangay Liyang.
4) And so to resolve this dispute, the Provincial Board of Laguna rendered a decision ruling
that the Municipality of Siniloan had jurisdiction over the barangays.
5) Later on, when an elementary school in Famy was transferred to Barangay Kapatalan, it
was considered under the jurisdiction of Famy
6) Because of this, it promted then Siniloan Vice Mayor Acoba to write to provincial board
of Laguna
7) Sangguniang Panlalawigan sustan Famy’s position and said that placing the barangay
under the municipality of Siniloan’s jurisdiction significantly reduced Municipality of
Famy’s population and such land are would be reduced to a point that is below the
requirement of the law.
8) Further, Siniloan was found to have abandoned its claim over Barangay Kapatan when it
ceased its internal revenue allotment to the barangay.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s issuance of writ of preliminary injunction in
favor of respondent Municipality of Siniloan

RESOLUTION:

No because:

1) All the government infrastructure projects such as school buildings, barangay halls,
puericulture centers and barangay roads were constructed with Siniloan as the
recognized territorial jurisdiction
2) Also, it has been shown that taxes for certain real properties located in Barangay
Kapatan and Liyang were and are being paid to Municipal Treasurer of Siniloan.
3) Finally, the decision of the Sangunniang Panlalawigan constitutes a bearing in the
computation of Interal Revenue Allotment of both Famy and Siniloan.

Therefore, Respondent Municipality of Siniloan satisfactorily showed that its circumstances

merited the temporary injunctive relief.

As such, the decision of the CA is affirmed.