Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 375 views

    City of Pasig v. COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    GR
    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC correctly held the plebiscite for Brgy. Karangalan in abeyance due to a pending boundary dispute case between Pasig and Cainta over the areas covered by the proposed barangays. The Court further ruled that the plebiscite approving the creation of Brgy. Napico was void because territorial jurisdiction must be clearly defined and a boundary dispute was still pending resolution. The creation of barangays requires the territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified, and since a boundary dispute case that could affect the proposed barangays' territories was still ongoing, the plebiscites could not be validly held until that separate case was resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    City of Pasig v. COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    GR
    375 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC correctly held the plebiscite for Brgy. Karangalan in abeyance due to a pending boundary dispute case between Pasig and Cainta over the areas covered by the proposed barangays. The Court further ruled that the plebiscite approving the creation of Brgy. Napico was void because territorial jurisdiction must be clearly defined and a boundary dispute was still pending resolution. The creation of barangays requires the territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified, and since a boundary dispute case that could affect the proposed barangays' territories was still ongoing, the plebiscites could not be validly held until that separate case was resolved.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC correctly held the plebiscite for Brgy. Karangalan in abeyance due to a pending boundary dispute case between Pasig and Cainta over the areas covered by the proposed barangays. The Court further ruled that the plebiscite approving the creation of Brgy. Napico was void because territorial jurisdiction must be clearly defined and a boundary dispute was still pending resolution. The creation of barangays requires the territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified, and since a boundary dispute case that could affect the proposed barangays' territories was still ongoing, the plebiscites could not be validly held until that separate case was resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    375 views1 page

    City of Pasig v. COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    GR
    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC correctly held the plebiscite for Brgy. Karangalan in abeyance due to a pending boundary dispute case between Pasig and Cainta over the areas covered by the proposed barangays. The Court further ruled that the plebiscite approving the creation of Brgy. Napico was void because territorial jurisdiction must be clearly defined and a boundary dispute was still pending resolution. The creation of barangays requires the territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified, and since a boundary dispute case that could affect the proposed barangays' territories was still ongoing, the plebiscites could not be validly held until that separate case was resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Settlement of boundary disputes such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed

    G.R. No. 125646, September 10, 1999 – CITY OF PASIG v. COMELEC barangays would only be an exercise in futility. To rule otherwise might pay the way for
    YNARES-SANTIAGO potentially ultra vires acts of such barangays.
    As to Napico, merely because a plebiscite has been held does not render the petition
    The City of Pasig passed ordinances creating two new barangays covering areas disputed of Cainta moot.
    by the Municipality of Cainta in a civil case in the RTC. Cainta filed petitions before the
    COMELEC to suspend or cancel the respective plebiscites. COMELEC ordered the DISPOSITIVE PORTION
    suspension of the plebiscite for Brgy. Karangalan, but because the one for Brgy. Napico had Petition of Cainta granted. Plebiscite to ratify creation of Brgy. Napico declared void, and
    already been held, it dismissed Cainta’s petition. The SC ruled that COMELEC was correct ordered held in abeyance until resolution with finality of the boundary dispute. Petition of
    in holding in abeyance the Brgy. Karangalan plebiscite, and further ruled that Pasig dismissed.

    DOCTRINE DIGESTER: Gabi Timbancaya


    A requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly
    identified by metes and bounds or by more or less permanent natural boundaries. Precisely
    because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending civil case, until and unless
    such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed
    barangays would only be an exercise in futility.

    FACTS
    1. Residents of Karangalan Village asked that it be segregated from its mother
    barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz, Pasig, and converted into a distinct barangay.
    The City Council of Pasig passed an ordinance creating Brgy. Karangalan.
    2. Pasig issued another ordinance creating Brgy. Napico.
    3. Both ordinances set the dates for plebiscites for each barangay.
    4. Upon learning of this, before the plebiscites could be held, the Municipality of Cainta
    filed petitions with the COMELEC to suspend or cancel such plebiscites.
    5. Cainta argued that there was a pending case before the RTC of Rizal for settlement of
    boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta on the areas In question, and that such
    plebiscites should be suspended or cancelled until the case should have been finally
    decided.
    6. As to Brgy. Karangalan, the COMELEC ordered that the plebiscite be held in abeyance.
    However, the Brgy. Napico plebiscite pushed through as scheduled, and so the
    COMELEC dismissed Cainta’s petition for being moot.
    7. Pasig appealed from the decision on Brgy. Karangalan, while Cainta appealed from that on
    Napico.

    ISSUE with HOLDING


    1. W/N the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Brgys. Karangalan and Napico
    should be suspended and cancelled in view of the pending boundary dispute
    between Pasig and Cainta – YES
    The boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta presents a prejudicial question
    which must first be decided before plebiscites for the creation of the proposed barangays
    may be held.
    Pasig argued the general rule that there is no prejudicial question where both cases
    are civil, a prejudicial question contemplates a civil and criminal action. However, the SC
    held in Vidad v. RTC Negros Oriental that, in the interest of good order, we can very well
    suspend action on one case pending the final outcome of another case closely interrelated
    or linked to the first.
    Portions of the areas covered by the proposed barangays are included in the
    boundary dispute, and whether they shall be decided as within the territorial jurisdiction of
    Cainta or Pasig has material bearing on the creation of the proposed barangays. Unless
    1

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy