G.R. No. 169435 ; February 27, 2008
Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte, represented by its Municipal Mayor, Caroline Arzadon-Garvida, petitioner, vs. Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte, represented by its Municipal Mayor, Salvador Pillos, and the Honorable Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

1. The Municipality of Nueva Era was created in 1916 by Executive Order No. 66, uniting several rancherias.
2. The Municipality of Marcos was created on June 22, 1963, by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3753. Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753 stated:
a. The new municipality was to be constituted from seven specified barrios of the Municipality of Dingras (Capariaan, Biding, Escoda, Culao, Alabaan, Ragas, and Agunit).
b. Its boundaries were described, including: “on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary.”
3. “Mt. Province” referred to the then-undivided Mountain Province, which was later subdivided into several provinces, including Apayao, which lies east of Ilocos Norte.
4. For nearly 30 years after its creation, Marcos’ eastern boundary was treated as coterminous with the eastern boundary of Dingras, its mother municipality.
5. In 1993, the Municipality of Marcos, through its Sangguniang Bayan, passed a resolution claiming a portion of Nueva Era’s territory (specifically, an area of about 15,400 hectares within Barangay Sto. Niño, Nueva Era). Marcos argued that to give effect to the statutory description of its eastern boundary as the “Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary,” its territory must extend eastward up to that provincial boundary, which would necessarily include part of Nueva Era situated between Marcos and the Ilocos Norte-Apayao (formerly Mt. Province) boundary.
6. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Ilocos Norte ruled in favor of Nueva Era, dismissing Marcos’ claim. The SP applied the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, noting that R.A. No. 3753 expressly sourced Marcos’ territory only from barrios of Dingras and did not mention any barrio from Nueva Era. The SP also reasoned that a literal interpretation leading to Marcos encroaching upon Nueva Era (and potentially Abra) would be absurd and contrary to legislative intent.
7. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the SP’s decision in part, declaring that Marcos was entitled to have its eastern boundary extended up to the boundary line between Ilocos Norte and Kalinga-Apayao (now Apayao), thereby allocating a portion of Nueva Era’s territory to Marcos.
8. Nueva Era elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting Section 1 of R.A. No. 3753 to mean that the eastern boundary of the Municipality of Marcos extends to the Ilocos Norte-Apayao provincial boundary, thereby granting Marcos a portion of the territory of the Municipality of Nueva Era.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the Decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte which dismissed the boundary claim of the Municipality of Marcos.
1. The creation of a municipality and the fixing of its boundaries is a legislative act. The law creating a municipality fixes its boundaries, and any alteration not in accordance with that law constitutes an amendment, which only Congress can undertake.
2. R.A. No. 3753 sourced Marcos’ territory exclusively from Dingras. The first paragraph of Section 1 explicitly separated seven named barrios from the Municipality of Dingras to constitute the new Municipality of Marcos. Nueva Era or any of its barrios was not mentioned. Applying the rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of Dingras as the sole source implies the exclusion of Nueva Era.
3. The boundary description must be read in harmony with the territorial source. The second paragraph describing the boundaries cannot be interpreted to contradict the first paragraph which identifies the territory’s origin. The boundary description serves to delineate the limits of the territory taken from Dingras, not to annex territory from another municipality.
4. A literal interpretation of the eastern boundary clause leads to an absurd result. Interpreting “on the East, by the Ilocos Norte-Mt. Province boundary” literally would mean Marcos’ territory would leapfrog over intervening municipalities (Nueva Era and potentially others) to reach a provincial boundary it does not physically touch. This would create a non-contiguous territory for Marcos and dismember Nueva Era, results not intended by the legislature.
5. Statutes must be construed as a whole and legislative intent prevails. The intent of R.A. No. 3753 was to create a new municipality from a specific part of Dingras. The description of the eastern boundary is construed to refer to the eastern limit of the aggregated barrios taken from Dingras, which was coterminous with the Dingras-Nueva Era boundary at the time of Marcos’ creation. This interpretation gives effect to all parts of the law and avoids an absurdity.
6. Long-standing contemporaneous construction supports Nueva Era’s jurisdiction. For almost three decades, Marcos recognized and acted upon the understanding that its eastern boundary was aligned with that of Dingras, not extending into Nueva Era. This practical construction is entitled to great respect.
7. Conclusion: The Municipality of Marcos is bounded on the east by the boundary between its mother municipality, Dingras, and the Municipality of Nueva Era, as it existed at the time of Marcos’ creation. It is not entitled to any portion of Nueva Era’s territory. The disputed area of Barangay Sto. Niño, Nueva Era, remains part of the Municipality of Nueva Era.