G.R. No. L-27466 March 29, 1972
PEDRO TORRES, JR., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. FRANCISCO Q. DUQUE, ET AL., respondent-appellees.

FACTS

The petitioners, consisting of the barrio captain, councilmen of Barrio Piñdañgan in Alcala, Pangasinan, and the municipal mayor and council, sought to nullify Resolution No. 186 of the Provincial Board of Pangasinan and Administrative Order No. 10 issued by Governor Francisco Q. Duque. The resolution and order divided Barrio Piñdañgan into three new barrios—Piñdañgan Este, Piñdañgan Oeste, and Kisikis—and set an election for their new barrio councils. The division was initiated by an undated petition signed by 334 residents of the barrio, which led to several municipal council resolutions from 1961 to 1963, ultimately recommending the division into three barrios to the provincial board.
The parties stipulated that the total number of registered voters in Barrio Piñdañgan was 856 in the 1961 elections and 938 in 1963. The petitioners challenged the legality of the division, arguing that the petition did not bear the signatures of a majority of the voters in the area affected, as required by the governing law, Republic Act No. 3590 (the Revised Barrio Charter). The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissed the petition, upholding the provincial board’s resolution and the governor’s order.

ISSUE

Whether the provincial board validly created the three new barrios despite the petition for division being signed by only 334 residents, which was less than a majority of the registered voters in Barrio Piñdañgan.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and declared the provincial board’s resolution and the governor’s administrative order null and void. The legal logic centers on the mandatory requirements for barrio creation under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3590 . The law explicitly requires: (1) a petition by a majority of the voters in the areas affected; (2) a recommendation by the municipal council, approved by at least two-thirds of its entire membership; and (3) a population of at least five hundred for the new barrio.
The Court found the first requirement was not complied with. The stipulated facts showed 334 signatories, but the registered voters numbered 856 in 1961 and 938 in 1963. Even assuming all signatories were registered voters, 334 constituted less than a majority. The lower court erred in presuming the petition was supported by a majority of voters merely because the presented document had 334 signatures without contrary proof. The Supreme Court held that the presumption should be the opposite: the exhibited signatures represented the entirety of the support. More critically, the burden of proof to show compliance with the statutory majority requirement rests on the party upholding the legality of the barrio creation. The respondents failed to discharge this burden. Since an indispensable condition of the law was not met, the division was illegal.