GR L 10202; (March, 1916) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10202; March 29, 1916
Case Title: The Government of the Philippine Islands Ex Rel. The Municipality of Cardona, Plaintiff, vs. The Municipality of Binangonan, et al., Defendants.
FACTS:
The Municipality of Cardona filed an action to perpetually prohibit the Municipality of Binangonan from exercising municipal authority over several barrios (Tatala, Balatik, Nambug, Tutulo, Mahabang Parang, Nagsulo, and Bonot). Cardona alleged that Binangonan was exercising such authority pursuant to Executive Order No. 66, series of 1914, issued by the Governor-General. The order defined and fixed the boundary between the two municipalities, placing the contested barrios under Binangonan’s jurisdiction. Cardona challenged the order as unconstitutional, arguing that Act No. 1748 , under which it was issued, improperly conferred legislative authority upon the Governor-General. Cardona further contended that the order was void because it did not contain an express statement that the change was required by public good or that there was a present urgency for its issuance. Binangonan demurred to the complaint, asserting it failed to state a cause of action.
ISSUE:
Whether the complaint states a sufficient cause of action by alleging that Executive Order No. 66, issued under Act No. 1748 , is unconstitutional and void.
RULING:
The demurrer is sustained. The complaint fails to state a cause of action. The Court held that every act of the legislature is presumed constitutional until clearly proven otherwise. The plaintiff presented no reason, argument, or citation of authority to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of Act No. 1748 . Therefore, the objection based on unconstitutionality is overruled. The other objectionsthat the order lacked an express finding of public good and urgencyare deemed frivolous. The Court stated that such factual prerequisites for the Governor-General’s action need not be recited in the order itself. The Court will presume that the Chief Executive acted upon a public necessity and due urgency when exercising his full authority. The action was ordered dismissed unless the plaintiff amended the complaint within five days to eliminate the untenable objections.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.
