City of Caloocan v. Malabon

R.A. 9019, enacted on March 5, 2001 and ratified in a plebiscite on April 21, 2001, converted the Municipality of Malabon into a highly urbanized city, and its Section 2 fixed Malabon's boundaries. On September 10, 2002, Henry Cammayo, a former Caloocan councilor, together with former barangay officials, filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Caloocan RTC. They claimed that Section 2 took substantial portions of Caloocan's Barangays 160 and 161 (Libis, Baesa) without the plebiscite required by Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution. The City of Caloocan intervened on the same ground. Malabon answered that the areas had always been part of Malabon, so no plebiscite was needed, and that the dispute had to go through Sections 118 and 119 of the Local Government Code. On January 28, 2019, the RTC declared R.A. 9019 unconstitutional and made the injunction permanent. On February 28, 2023, the CA reversed and dismissed the case without prejudice to the procedure under Sections 118(d) and (e) and 119 of the LGC, and it denied reconsideration on August 24, 2023. Caloocan filed a Rule 45 petition.

1. 1Whether the CA erred in holding that the controversy is a boundary dispute that must first be jointly referred to the sanggunians of the two cities under Section 118 of the LGC.
2. 2Whether a petition for declaratory relief was a proper remedy to challenge Section 2 of R.A. 9019.

The Court denied the petition. Both cities claim the same portions of the two barangays under their charters and different government records. Under Rule III, Article 15 of the LGC's implementing rules, that is a boundary dispute. Those conflicting claims must be resolved before any question of whether a plebiscite was required can arise. Because Caloocan and Malabon were both highly urbanized cities when the case was filed, Section 118(d) of the LGC required joint referral to their respective sanggunians for amicable settlement. If settlement fails within 60 days, the sanggunian tries and decides the dispute under Section 118(e). Only then may a party go to the RTC under Section 119 (citing Province of Antique v. Calabocal and the Pateros cases). The direct resort to the RTC was therefore premature. Both the sanggunians and the RTC must limit themselves to determining the boundary lines fixed in the laws creating the LGUs, because only Congress may create LGUs or alter their boundaries. Declaratory relief was also improper, because three of its requisites were missing. The terms of Section 2 of R.A. 9019 are not doubtful, since it gives exact metes and bounds. The issue was not ripe. And an adequate remedy exists under the LGC. Constitutionality was not the lis mota, since the case could be decided on other grounds, so the Court would not pass on it. The CA rulings were affirmed, and the parties were directed to comply with Section 118(d) and (e) of the LGC and Rule III of its implementing rules, without prejudice to judicial recourse.