G.R. No. L-12603; March 25, 1960
Municipality of Hinabañgan and Rufina Nabual, assisted by her husband, Eugenio Nabual, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. The Municipality of Wright and Julian Abegonia, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The Municipality of Hinabañgan, created under Republic Act No. 263 , and its licensee, Rufina Nabual, filed a complaint for declaratory relief. They alleged that Hinabañgan was formed by fusing the municipal districts of Hinabañgan and Concord, and that its territorial extent and boundaries remained as they were prior to the Act. They claimed that beginning in 1954, the defendant Municipality of Wright began asserting jurisdiction over certain fishing grounds within Hinabañgan’s territory and had issued a fishing license to co-defendant Julian Abegonia for those areas. Wright was also asserting jurisdiction over Barrio Candoyocan, claimed by Hinabañgan. The plaintiffs further alleged that the Provincial Board of Samar had failed to resolve the dispute for over five years. They prayed for a judicial declaration that the Bucalan River, its tributaries, and Barrio Candoyocan are integral parts of Hinabañgan under Republic Act No. 263 , and for an injunction against Wright’s claims. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the case involved a boundary dispute between municipalities, which under the law is vested in the executive department to resolve, not the courts.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint, specifically in holding that declaratory relief is not the proper remedy and that it lacks jurisdiction over the case, which involves a boundary dispute between municipalities.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that the right to settle boundary disputes between municipalities is vested by law on the provincial board of the province concerned, as outlined in Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code. The controversy between the licensees, Nabual and Abegonia, is interlinked with this boundary dispute, which was still awaiting resolution by the Provincial Board of Samar. Therefore, a judicial recourse would be premature. The Court found that the boundary dispute was the very issue in controversy, as evident from the plaintiffs’ prayer for a declaration of jurisdiction over specific areas. If Wright issued licenses for territory beyond its boundaries, the proper action would be to eject the licensee, not a petition for declaratory judgment. The Court also noted that the lower court properly raised the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies motu proprio, as it affects the cause of action.