Public Corporations

EN BANC and said orders constitutin le islati'e power([8] an undue dele ation of

[G.R. No. 161414. January 17, 2005]

SULTAN OSOP B. CA !", petitioner, vs. T#$ O%%!C$ O% T#$ PR$S!"$NT, "$PART $NT O% T#$ !NT$R!OR AN" LOCAL GO&$RN $NT, AUTONO OUS R$G!ON !N USL! !N"ANAO, "$PART $NT o' %!NANC$, "$PART $NT o' BU"G$T AN" ANAG$ $NT, CO !SS!ON ON AU"!T, an( )*+ CONGR$SS O% T#$ P#!L!PP!N$S ,#OUS$ o' R$PR$S$NTAT!&$S AN" S$NAT$-, respondents. "$C!S!ON T!NGA, J.. This Petition for Certiorari presents this Court with the prospect of our own Brigadoon[1]the municipality of Andon ! "anao del #ur$which li%e its counterpart in filmdom! is a town that is not supposed to e&ist yet is anyway insisted by some as actually ali'e and thri'in ( )et unli%e in the mo'ies! there is nothin mystical! hostly or anythin e'en remotely charmin about the purported e&istence of Andon ( The creation of the putati'e municipality was declared void ab initio by this Court four decades a o! but the present petition insists that in spite of this insurmountable obstacle Andon thri'es on! and hence! its le al personality should be i'en *udicial affirmation( +e disa ree( The factual antecedents deri'e from the promul ation of our rulin in Pelaez v. Auditor General[,] in 1-./( As discussed therein! then President 0iosdado 1acapa al issued se'eral E&ecuti'e 2rders[3] creatin thirty4three 5336 municipalities in 1indanao( Amon them was Andon in "anao del #ur which was created by 'irtue of E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 178([9] These e&ecuti'e orders were issued after le islati'e bills for the creation of municipalities in'ol'ed in that case had failed to pass Con ress( [/] President 0iosdado 1acapa al *ustified the creation of these municipalities citin his powers under #ection .: of the ;e'ised Administrati'e Code( Then <ice4President Emmanuel Pelae= filed a special ci'il action for a writ of prohibition! alle in in main that the E&ecuti'e 2rders were null and 'oid! #ection .: ha'in been repealed by ;epublic Act No( ,387! [.]

After due deliberation! the Court unanimously held that the challen ed E&ecuti'e 2rders were null and 'oid( A ma*ority of fi'e *ustices! led by the ponente! >ustice 5later Chief >ustice6 ;oberto Concepcion! ruled that #ection .: of the ;e'ised Administrati'e Code did not meet the well4settled re?uirements for a 'alid dele ation of le islati'e power to the e&ecuti'e branch![:] while three *ustices opined that the nullity of the issuances was the conse?uence of the enactment of the 1-3/ Constitution! which reduced the power of the Chief E&ecuti'e o'er local o'ernments( [-] Pelaez was disposed in this wise@ +AE;EB2;E! the E&ecuti'e 2rders in ?uestion are declared null and 'oid ab initio and the respondent permanently restrained from passin in audit any e&penditure of public funds in implementation of said E&ecuti'e 2rders or any disbursement by the municipalities abo'e referred to( Ct is so ordered([17] Amon the E&ecuti'e 2rders annulled was E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 178 which created the 1unicipality of Andon ( Ne'ertheless! the core issue presented in the present petition is the continued efficacy of the *udicial annulment of the 1unicipality of Andon ( Petitioner #ultan 2sop B( Camid 5Camid6 represents himself as a current resident of Andon ! [11] suin as a pri'ate citi=en and ta&payer whose locus standi Dis of public and paramount interest especially to the people of the 1unicipality of Andon ! Pro'ince of "anao del #ur(E [1,] Ae alle es that Andon Dhas metamorphosed into a full4blown municipality with a complete set of officials appointed to handle essential ser'ices for the municipality and its constituents!E [13] e'en thou h he concedes that since 1-.:! no person has been appointed! elected or ?ualified to ser'e any of the electi'e local o'ernment positions of Andon ( [19] Nonetheless! the municipality of Andon has its own hi h school! Bureau of Posts! a 0epartment of Education! Culture and #ports office! and at least se'enteen 5186 Dbaran ay unitsE with their own respecti'e chairmen([1/] Brom 1-.9 until 1-8,! accordin to Camid! the public officials of Andon Dha'e been ser'in their constituents throu h the minimal means and resources with least 5sic6 honorarium and reco nition from the 2ffice of the then former President 0iosdado 1acapa al(E #ince the time of 1artial "aw in 1-8,! Andon has alle edly been ettin by despite the absence of public funds! with the DCnterim 2fficialsE ser'in their constituents Din their own little ways and means(E[1.] Cn support of his claim that Andon remains in e&istence! Camid presents to this Court a

1/Pa

Public Corporations
Certification issued by the 2ffice of the Community En'ironment and Natural ;esources 5CEN;26 of the 0epartment of En'ironment and Natural ;esources 50EN;6 certifyin the total land area of the 1unicipality of Andon ! Dcreated under E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 178 issued [last] 2ctober 1! 1-.9(E [18] Ae also submits a Certification issued by the Pro'incial #tatistics 2ffice of 1arawi City concernin the population of Andon ! which is pe ed at fourteen thousand fifty nine 519!7/-6 stron ( Camid also enumerates a list of o'ernmental a encies and pri'ate roups that alle edly reco ni=e Andon ! and notes that other municipalities ha'e recommended to the #pea%er of the ;e ional "e islati'e Assembly for the immediate implementation of the re'i'al or re4 establishment of Andon ([1:] The petition assails a Certification dated ,1 No'ember ,773! issued by the Bureau of "ocal Fo'ernment #uper'ision of the 0epartment of Cnterior and "ocal Fo'ernment 50C"F6( [1-] The Certification enumerates ei hteen 51:6 municipalities certified as De&istin !E per 0C"F records( Notably! these ei hteen 51:6 municipalities are amon the thirty4three 5336! alon with Andon ! whose creations were 'oided by this Court in Pelaez( These municipalities are 1idaslip! Pito o! Na a! and Bayo in Gamboan a del #urH #iayan and Pres( 1anuel A( ;o&as in Gamboan a del NorteH 1a saysay! #ta( 1aria and New Corella in 0a'aoH Badian an and 1ina in CloiloH 1a uin in "anao del #urH Floria in 2riental 1indoroH 1aasim in #aran aniH Ialilan an and "antapan in Bu%idnonH and 1aco in Compostela <alley([,7] Camid imputes ra'e abuse of discretion on the part of the 0C"F Din not classifyin [Andon ] as a re ular e&istin municipality and in not includin said municipality in its records and official database as [an] e&istin re ular municipality(E[,1] Ae characteri=es such non4classification as une?ual treatment to the detriment of Andon ! especially in li ht of the current reco nition i'en to the ei hteen 51:6 municipalities similarly annulled by reason of Pelaez( As appropriate relief! Camid prays that the Court annul the 0C"F Certification dated ,1 No'ember ,773H direct the 0C"F to classify Andon as a Dre ular e&istin municipalityHE all public respondents! to e&tend full reco nition and support to Andon H the 0epartment of Binance and the 0epartment of Bud et and 1ana ement! to immediately release the internal re'enue allotments of Andon H and the public respondents! particularly the 0C"F! to reco ni=e the DCnterim "ocal 2fficialsE of Andon ([,,] 1oreo'er! Camid insists on the continuin 'alidity of E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 178( Ae ar ues that Pelaez has already been modified by super'enin e'ents consistin of subse?uent laws and *urisprudence( Particularly cited is our Decision in Municipality of San Narciso v. Hon. Mendez![,3] wherein the Court affirmed the uni?ue status of the municipality of #an Andres in Jue=on as a D de facto municipal corporation(E[,9] #imilar to Andon ! the municipality of #an Andres was created by way of e&ecuti'e order! precisely the manner which the Court in Pelae= had declared as unconstitutional( 1oreo'er! San Narciso cited! as Camid does! #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code of 1--1 as basis for the current reco nition of the impu ned municipality( The pro'ision reads@ &&& #ection 99,( e!uisites for Creation. 4

5d6 1unicipalities e&istin as of the date of the effecti'ity of this Code shall continue to e&ist and operate as such( E&istin municipal districts or ani=ed pursuant to presidential issuances or e&ecuti'e orders and which ha'e their respecti'e sets of electi'e municipal officials holdin office at the time of the effecti'ity of 5the6 Code shall henceforth be considered as re ular municipalities([,/] There are se'eral reasons why the petition must be dismissed( These can be better discerned upon e&amination of the proper scope and application of #ection 99,5d6! which does not sanction the reco nition of *ust any municipality( This point shall be further e&plained further on( Notably! as pointed out by the public respondents! throu h the 2ffice of the #olicitor Feneral 52#F6! the case is not a fit sub*ect for the special ci'il actions of certiorari and mandamus! as it pertains to the de novo appreciation of factual ?uestions( There is indeed no way to confirm se'eral of CamidKs astonishin factual alle ations pertainin to the purported continuin operation of Andon in the decades since it was annulled by this Court( No trial court has had the opportunity to ascertain the 'alidity of these factual claims! the appreciation of which is beyond the function of this Court since it is not a trier of facts( The importance of proper factual ascertainment cannot be ainsaid! especially in li ht of the le al principles o'ernin the reco nition of de facto municipal corporations( Ct has been opined that municipal corporations may e&ist by prescription where it is shown that the community has claimed and e&ercised corporate functions! with the %nowled e and ac?uiescence of the le islature! and without interruption or ob*ection for period lon enou h to afford title by prescription( [,.] These municipal corporations ha'e e&ercised their powers for a lon period without ob*ection on the part of the

,/Pa

Public Corporations
o'ernment that althou h no charter is in e&istence! it is presumed that they were duly incorporated in the first place and that their charters had been lost( [,8] They are especially common in En land! which! as well4worth notin ! has e&isted as a state for o'er a thousand years( The reason for the de'elopment of that rule in En land is understandable! since that country was settled lon before the ;oman con?uest by nomadic Celtic tribes! which could ha'e hardly been e&pected to obtain a municipal charter in the absence of a national le al authority( Cn the Lnited #tates! municipal corporations by prescription are less common! but it has been held that when no charter or act of incorporation of a town can be found! it may be shown to ha'e claimed and e&ercised the powers of a town with the %nowled e and assent of the le islature! and without ob*ection or interruption for so lon a period as to furnish e'idence of a prescripti'e ri ht( [,:] +hat is clearly essential is a factual demonstration of the continuous e&ercise by the municipal corporation of its corporate powers! as well as the ac?uiescence thereto by the other instrumentalities of the state( Camid does not ha'e the opportunity to ma%e an initial factual demonstration of those circumstances before this Court( Cndeed! the factual deficiencies aside! CamidKs plaint should ha'e under one the usual administrati'e auntlet and! once that was done! should ha'e been filed first with the Court of Appeals! which at least would ha'e had the power to ma%e the necessary factual determinations( CamidKs seemin i norance of the principles of e&haustion of administrati'e remedies and hierarchy of courts! as well as the concomitant prematurity of the present petition! cannot be countenanced( Ct is also difficult to capture the sense and 'iability of CamidKs present action( The assailed issuance is the Certification issued by the 0C"F( But such Certification does not pretend to bear the authority to create or re'alidate a municipality( Certainly! the annulment of the Certification will really do nothin to ser'e CamidKs ultimate cause4 the reco nition of Andon ( Neither does the Certification e'en e&pressly refute the claim that Andon still e&ists! as there is nothin in the document that comments on the present status of Andon ( Perhaps the Certification is assailed before this Court if only to present an actual issuance! rather than a lon 4standin habit or pattern of action that can be annulled throu h the special ci'il action of certiorari( #till! the relation of the Certification to CamidKs central ar ument is forlornly strained( These dis?uisitions aside! the central issue remains whether a municipality whose creation by e&ecuti'e fiat was pre'iously 'oided by this Court may attain reco nition in the absence of any curati'e or reimplementin statute( Apparently! the ?uestion has ne'er been decided before! San Narciso and its %indred cases pertainin as they did to municipalities whose bases of creation were dubious yet were ne'er *udicially nullified( The effect of #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code on municipalities such as Andon warrants e&planation( Besides! the residents of Andon who belabor under the impression that their town still e&ists! much less those who may comport themsel'es as the municipalityKs DCnterim Fo'ernment!E would be well ser'ed by a rude awa%enin ( The Court can employ a simplistic approach in resol'in the substanti'e aspect of the petition! merely by pointin out that the 1unicipality of Andon ne'er e&isted([,-] E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 178! which established Andon ! was declared Dnull and 'oid ab initioE in 1-./ by this Court in Pelaez! alon with thirty4three 5336 other e&ecuti'e orders( The phrase Dab initioE means Dfrom the be innin !E[37] Dat first!E[31] Dfrom the inception(E[3,] Pelaez was ne'er re'ersed by this Court but rather it was e&pressly affirmed in the cases of Municipality of San "oa!uin v. Siva#[33] Municipality of Malabang v. Benito#[39] and Municipality of $apalong v. Moya ([3/] No subse?uent rulin by this Court declared Pelae= as o'erturned or inoperati'e( No subse?uent le islation has been passed since 1-./ creatin a 1unicipality of Andon ( Fi'en these facts! there is hardly any reason to elaborate why Andon does not e&ist as a duly constituted municipality( This ratiocination does not admit to patent le al errors and has the additional 'irtue of blessed austerity( #till! its sweepin adoption may not be ad'isedly appropriate in li ht of #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code and our rulin in Municipality of San Narciso! both of which admit to the possibility of de facto municipal corporations( To understand the applicability of Municipality of San Narciso and #ection 99,5b6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code to the situation of Andon ! it is necessary a ain to consider the ramifications of our decision in Pelaez( The eminent le al doctrine enunciated in Pelaez was that the President was then! and still is! not empowered to create municipalities throu h e&ecuti'e issuances( The Court therein reco ni=ed Dthat the President has! for many years! issued e&ecuti'e orders creatin municipal corporations! and that the same ha'e been or ani=ed and in actual operation ( ( ( (E[3.] Aowe'er! the Court ultimately nullified only those thirty4three 5336 municipalities! includin Andon ! created durin the period from 9 #eptember to ,- 2ctober 1-.9 whose e&istence petitioner <ice4President Pelae= had specifically assailed before this Court( No pronouncement was made as to the other municipalities which had been pre'iously created by the President in the e&ercise of power the Court deemed unlawful(

3/Pa

Public Corporations
Two years after Pelaez was decided! the issue a ain came to fore in Municipality of San "oa!uin v. Siva([38] The 1unicipality of "awi an was created by 'irtue of E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 93. in 1-.1( "awi an was not one of the municipalities ordered annulled in Pelaez( A petition for prohibition was filed contestin the le ality of the e&ecuti'e order! a ain on the round that #ection .: of the ;e'ised Administrati'e Code was unconstitutional( The trial court dismissed the petition! but the #upreme Court re'ersed the rulin and entered a new decision declarin E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 93. 'oid ab initio( The Court reasoned without elaboration that the issue had already been s?uarely ta%en up and settled in Pelaez which a reed with the ar ument posed by the challen ers to "awi anKs 'alidity([3:] Cn the 1-.- case of Municipality of Malabang v. Benito![3-] what was challen ed is the 'alidity of the constitution of the 1unicipality of Balaba an in "anao del #ur! also created by an e&ecuti'e order! [97] and which! similar to "awi an! was not one of the municipalities annulled in Pelaez( This time! the officials of Balaba an in'o%ed de facto status as a municipal corporation in order to dissuade the Court from nullifyin action( They alle ed that its status as a de facto corporation cannot be collaterally attac%ed but should be in?uired into directly in an action for !uo %arranto at the instance of the #tate! and not by a pri'ate indi'idual as it was in that case( Cn response! the Court conceded that an in?uiry into the le al e&istence of a municipality is reser'ed to the #tate in a proceedin for !uo %arranto! but only if the municipal corporation is a de facto corporation([91] Lltimately! the Court refused to ac%nowled e Balaba an as a de facto corporation! e'en thou h it had been or ani=ed prior to the CourtKs decision in Pelaez( The Court declared 'oid the e&ecuti'e order creatin Balaba an and restrained its municipal officials from performin their official duties and functions([9,] Ct cited conflictin American authorities on whether a de facto corporation can e&ist where the statute or charter creatin it is unconstitutional( [93] But the CourtKs final conclusion was une?ui'ocal that Balaba an was not a de facto corporation( Cn the cases where a de facto municipal corporation was reco ni=ed as such despite the fact that the statute creatin it was later in'alidated! the decisions could fairly be made to rest on the consideration that there was some other 'alid law i'in corporate 'itality to the or ani=ation( Aence! in the case at bar! the mere fact that Balaba an was or ani=ed at a time when the statute had not been in'alidated cannot concei'ably ma%e it a de facto corporation! as! independently of the Administrati'e Code pro'ision in ?uestion! there is no other 'alid statute to creation([99] i'e color of authority to its

The Court did clarify in Malabang that the pre'ious acts done by the municipality in the e&ercise of its corporate powers were not necessarily a nullity( [9/] Camid de'otes se'eral pa es of his petition in citin this point![9.] yet the rele'ance of the citation is unclear considerin that Camid does not assert the 'alidity of any corporate act of Andon prior to its *udicial dissolution( Notwithstandin ! the Court in Malabang retained an emphatic attitude as to the unconstitutionality of the power of the President to create municipal corporations by way of presidential promul ations! as authori=ed under #ection .: of the ;e'ised Administrati'e Code( This principle was most recently affirmed in 1-::! in Municipality of $apalong v. Moya ([98] The municipality of #anto Tomas! created by President Carlos P( Farcia! filed a complaint a ainst another municipality! who challen ed #anto TomasKs le al personality to institute suit( A ain! #anto Tomas had not been e&pressly nullified by prior *udicial action! yet the Court refused to reco ni=e its le al e&istence( The blunt but simple rulin @ DNow then! as ruled in the Pelae= case supra! the President has no power to create a municipality( #ince [#anto Tomas] has no le al personality! it can not be a party to any ci'il actionM(E[9:] Ne'ertheless! when the Court decided Municipality of San Narciso[9-] in 1--/! it indicated a shift in the *urisprudential treatment of municipalities created throu h presidential issuances( The ?uestioned municipality of #an Andres! Jue=on was created on ,7 Au ust 1-/- by E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 3/3 issued by President Carlos P( Farcia( E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 3/3 was not one of the thirty4three issuances annulled by Pelaez in 1-./( The le al status of the 1unicipality of #an Andres was first challen ed only in 1-:-! throu h a petition for !uo %arranto filed with the ;e ional Trial Court of Fumaca! Jue=on! which did cite Pelaez as authority( [/7] The ;TC dismissed the petition for lac% of cause of action! and the petitioners therein ele'ated the matter to this Court( Cn dismissin the petition! the Court del'ed in the merits of the petition! if only to resol'e further doubt on the le al status of #an Andres( Ct noted a circumstance which is not present in the case at bar that #an Andres was in e&istence for nearly thirty 5376 years before its le ality was challen ed( The Court did not declare the e&ecuti'e order creatin #an Andres null and 'oid( #till! actin on the premise that the said e&ecuti'e order was a complete nullity! the Court noted Dpeculiar circumstancesE that led to the conclusion that #an Andres had attained the uni?ue status of a Dde facto municipal corporation(E [/1] Ct noted that Pelaez limited its nullificatory effect only to those e&ecuti'e orders specifically challen ed

9/Pa

Public Corporations
therein! despite the fact that the Court then could ha'e 'ery well e&tended the decision to in'alidate #an Andres as well([/,] This statement s?uarely contradicts CamidKs readin of San Narciso that the creation of #an Andres! *ust li%e Andon ! had been declared a complete nullity on the same round of unconstitutional dele ation of le islati'e power found in Pelaez([/3] The Court also considered the applicability of #ection 99,5d6[/9] of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code of 1--1( Ct clarified the implication of the pro'ision as follows@ E?ually si nificant is #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code to the effect that municipal districts Nor ani=ed pursuant to presidential issuances or e&ecuti'e orders and which ha'e their respecti'e sets of electi'e municipal officials holdin office at the time of the effecti'ity of 5the6 Code shall henceforth be considered as re ular municipalities(N No pretension of unconstitutionality per se of #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code is preferred( Ct is doubtful whether such a prete&t! e'en if made! would succeed( T*+ 0o1+r )o 2r+a)+ 0o34)42a3 5u6(47454on5 45 a 'un2)4on o' )*+ 3+8453a)ur+. Con8r+55 (4( 9u5) )*a) 1*+n 4) *a5 4n2or0ora)+( S+2)4on 442,(- 4n )*+ Co(+( Curati'e laws! which in essence are retrospecti'e! and aimed at i'in N'alidity to acts done that would ha'e been in'alid under e&istin laws! as if e&istin laws ha'e been complied with!N are 'alidly accepted in this *urisdiction! sub*ect to the usual ?ualification a ainst impairment of 'ested ri hts( 5Emphasis supplied6[//] The holdin in #an Narciso was subse?uently affirmed in Municipality of Candi&ay v. Court of Appeals[/.] and Municipality of "i'enez v. Baz [/8] Cn Candi&ay! the *uridical personality of the 1unicipality of Alicia! created in a 1-9- e&ecuti'e order! was attac%ed only be innin in 1-:9( Pelaez was a ain in'o%ed in support of the challen e! but the Court refused to in'alidate the municipality! citin San Narciso at len th( The Court noted that the situation of the 1unicipality of Alicia was stri%in ly similar to that in San NarcisoH hence! the town should li%ewise Dbenefit from the effects of #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code! and should [be] considered as a re ular! de &ure municipality(E [/:] The 'alid e&istence of 1unicipality of #inacaban! created in a 1-9- e&ecuti'e order! was amon the issues raised in "i'enez( The Court! throu h >ustice 1endo=a! pro'ided an e&pert summation of the e'olution of the rule( The principal basis for the 'iew that #inacaban was not 'alidly created as a municipal corporation is the rulin in Pelaez v. Auditor General that the creation of municipal corporations is essentially a le islati'e matter and therefore the President was without power to create by e&ecuti'e order the 1unicipality of #inacaban( The rulin in this case has been reiterated in a number of cases later decided( Aowe'er! we ha'e since held that where a municipality created as such by e&ecuti'e order is later impliedly reco ni=ed and its acts are accorded le al 'alidity! its creation can no lon er be ?uestioned( Cn Municipality of San Narciso# (uezon v. Mendez# Sr.! this Court considered the followin factors as ha'in 'alidated the creation of a municipal corporation! which! li%e the 1unicipality of #inacaban! was created by e&ecuti'e order of the President before the rulin in Pelaez v. Auditor General@ 516 the fact that for nearly 37 years the 'alidity of the creation of the municipality had ne'er been challen edH 5,6 the fact that followin the rulin in Pelae= no !uo %arranto suit was filed to ?uestion the 'alidity of the e&ecuti'e order creatin such municipalityH and 536 the fact that the municipality was later classified as a fifth class municipality! or ani=ed as part of a municipal circuit court and considered part of a le islati'e district in the Constitution apportionin the seats in the Aouse of ;epresentati'es( Abo'e all! it was held that whate'er doubt there mi ht be as to the de &ure character of the municipality must be deemed to ha'e been put to rest by the "ocal Fo'ernment Code of 1--1 5;( A( No( 81.76! O99,5d6 of which pro'ides that Nmunicipal districts or ani=ed pursuant to presidential issuances or e&ecuti'e orders and which ha'e their respecti'e sets of electi'e officials holdin office at the time of the effecti'ity of this Code shall henceforth be considered as re ular municipalities(N Aere! the same factors are present so as to confer on #inacaban the status of at least a de facto municipal corporation in the sense that its le al e&istence has been reco ni=ed and ac?uiesced publicly and officially( #inacaban had been in e&istence for si&teen years when Pelaez v. Auditor General was decided on 0ecember ,9! 1-./( )et the 'alidity of E(2( No( ,/: creatin it had ne'er been ?uestioned( Created in 1-9-! it was only 97 years later that its e&istence was ?uestioned and only because it had laid claim to an area that apparently is desired for its re'enue( This

//Pa

Public Corporations
fact must be underscored because under ;ule ..! O1. of the ;ules of Court! a !uo %arranto suit a ainst a corporation for forfeiture of its charter must be commenced within fi'e 5/6 years from the time the act complained of was done or committed( 2n the contrary! the #tate and e'en the 1unicipality of >imene= itself ha'e reco ni=ed #inacabanPs corporate e&istence( Lnder Administrati'e 2rder No( 33 dated >une 13! 1-8: of this Court! as reiterated by O31 of the >udiciary ;eor ani=ation Act of 1-:7 5B( P( Bl ( 1,-6! #inacaban is constituted part of a municipal circuit for purposes of the establishment of 1unicipal Circuit Trial Courts in the country( Bor its part! >imene= had earlier reco ni=ed #inacaban in 1-/7 by enterin into an a reement with it re ardin their common boundary( The a reement was embodied in ;esolution No( 88 of the Pro'incial Board of 1isamis 2ccidental( Cndeed #inacaban has attained de &ure status by 'irtue of the 2rdinance appended to the 1-:8 Constitution! apportionin le islati'e districts throu hout the country! which considered #inacaban part of the #econd 0istrict of 1isamis 2ccidental( 1oreo'er! followin the rulin in Municipality of San Narciso# (uezon v. Mendez# Sr(! 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code of 1--1 must be deemed to ha'e cured any defect in the creation of #inacabanM([/-] Brom this sur'ey of rele'ant *urisprudence! we can ather the applicable rules( Pelaez and its offsprin cases ruled that the President has no power to create municipalities! yet limited its nullificatory effects to the particular municipalities challen ed in actual cases before this Court( Aowe'er! with the promul ation of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code in 1--1! the le al cloud was lifted o'er the municipalities similarly created by e&ecuti'e order but not *udicially annulled( The de facto status of such municipalities as #an Andres! Alicia and #inacaban was reco ni=ed by this Court! and #ection 99,5b6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code deemed curati'e whate'er le al defects to title these municipalities had labored under( Cs Andon similarly entitled to reco nition as a de facto municipal corporationQ Ct is not( There are eminent differences between Andon and municipalities such as #an Andres! Alicia and #inacaban( 1ost prominent is the fact that the e&ecuti'e order creatin Andon was e&pressly annulled by order of this Court in 1-./( Cf we were to affirm Andon Ks de facto status by reason of its alle ed continued e&istence despite its nullification! we would in effect be condonin defiance of a 'alid order of this Court( Court decisions cannot ob'iously lose their efficacy due to the sheer defiance by the parties a rie'ed( Ct bears notin that based on CamidKs own admissions! Andon does not meet the re?uisites set forth by #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Code( #ection 99,5d6 re?uires that in order that the municipality created by e&ecuti'e order may recei'e reco nition! they must Dha'e their respecti'e set of electi'e municipal officials holdin office at the time of the effecti'ity of [the "ocal Fo'ernment] Code(E Camid admits that Andon has ne'er elected its municipal officers at all([.7] This incapacity ties in with the fact that Andon was *udicially annulled in 1-./( 2ut of obeisance to our rulin in Pelaez! the national o'ernment ceased to reco ni=e the e&istence of Andon ! depri'in it of its share of the public funds! and refusin to conduct municipal elections for the 'oid municipality( The failure to appropriate funds for Andon and the absence of elections in the municipality in the last four decades are elo?uent indicia of the non4 reco nition by the #tate of the e&istence of the town( The certifications relied upon by Camid! issued by the 0EN;4CEN;2 and the National #tatistics 2ffice! can hardly ser'e the purpose of attestin to Andon Ks le al efficacy( Cn fact! both these certifications ?ualify that they were issued upon the re?uest of Camid! Dto support the restoration or re4operation of the 1unicipality of Andon ! "anao del #ur!E [.1] thus ob'iously concedin that the municipality is at present inoperati'e( +e may li%ewise pay attention to the 2rdinance appended to the 1-:8 Constitution! which had also been relied upon in "i'enez and San Narciso ( This 2rdinance! which apportioned the seats of the Aouse of ;epresentati'es to the different le islati'e districts in the Philippines! enumerates the 'arious municipalities that are encompassed by the 'arious le islati'e districts( Andon is not listed therein as amon the municipalities of "anao del #ur! or of any other pro'ince for that matter( [.,] 2n the other hand! the municipalities of #an Andres! Alicia and #inacaban are mentioned in the 2rdinance as part of Jue=on![.3] Bohol![.9] and 1isamis 2ccidental[./] respecti'ely( Aow about the ei hteen 51:6 municipalities similarly nullified in Pelaez but certified as e&istin in the 0C"F Certification presented by CamidQ The petition fails to mention that subse?uent to the rulin in Pelaez# le islation was enacted to reconstitute these municipalities([..] Ct is thus not surprisin that the 0C"F certified the e&istence of these ei hteen 51:6 municipalities! or that these towns are amon the municipalities enumerated in the 2rdinance appended to the Constitution( Andon has not been similarly reestablished throu h statute( Clearly then!

./Pa

Public Corporations
the fact that there are 'alid or anic statutes passed by le islation recreatin these ei hteen 51:6 municipalities is sufficient le al basis to accord a different le al treatment to Andon as a ainst these ei hteen 51:6 other municipalities( +e thus assert the proper pur'iew to #ection 99,5d6 of the "ocal Fo'ernment Codethat it does not ser'e to affirm or reconstitute the *udicially dissol'ed municipalities such as Andon ! which had been pre'iously created by presidential issuances or e&ecuti'e orders( The pro'ision affirms the le al personalities only of those municipalities such as #an Narciso! Alicia! and #inacaban! which may ha'e been created usin the same infirm le al basis! yet were fortunate enou h not to ha'e been *udicially annulled( 2n the other hand! the municipalities *udicially dissol'ed in cases such as Pelaez# San "oa!uin# and Malabang! remain ine&istent! unless recreated throu h specific le islati'e enactments! as done with the ei hteen 51:6 municipalities certified by the 0C"F( Those municipalities deri'e their le al personality not from the presidential issuances or e&ecuti'e orders which ori inally created them or from #ection 99,5d6! but from the respecti'e le islati'e statutes which were enacted to re'i'e them( And what now of Andon and its residentsQ Certainly! neither Pelaez or this decision has obliterated Andon into a hole on the round( The le al effect of the nullification of Andon in Pelaez was to re'ert the constituent barrios of the 'oided town bac% into their ori inal municipalities! namely the municipalities of "umbatan! Buti and Tubaran( [.8] These three municipalities subsist to this day as part of "anao del #ur![.:] and presumably continue to e&ercise corporate powers o'er the barrios which once belon ed to Andon ( Cf there is truly a stron impulse callin for the reconstitution of Andon ! the solution is throu h the le islature and not *udicial confirmation of 'oid title( Cf indeed the residents of Andon ha'e! all these years! been o'erned not by their proper municipal o'ernments but by a ra ta DCnterim Fo'ernment!E then an e&pedient political and le islati'e solution is perhaps necessary( )et we can hardly sanction the retention of Andon Ks le al personality solely on the basis of collecti'e amnesia that may ha'e allowed Andon to somehow pretend itself into e&istence despite its *udicial dissolution( 1aybe those who insist Andon still e&ists prefer to remain unperturbed in their blissful i norance! li%e the inhabitants of the ca'e in PlatoKs famed alle ory( But the time has come for the li ht to seep in! and for the petitioner and li%e4minded persons to awa%en to le al reality( :#$R$%OR$! the Petition is 0C#1C##E0 for lac% of merit( Costs a ainst petitioner( SO OR"$R$". Davide# "r.# C.".# Puno# Panganiban# (uisu'bing# )nares*Santiago# Sandoval*Gutierrez# Carpio# Austria*Martinez# Corona# Carpio*Morales# Calle&o# Sr.# Azcuna# C+ico*Nazario and Garcia# "".# concur(
A 1-/9 film based on the well4%nown eponymous Broadway musical by Alan >ay "erner and Brederic% "oewe( The plot pertains to a ma ical #cottish town touted to appear once e'ery hundred years on some otherworldly plain accordin to le end( [,] 1,, Phil( -./ 51-./6( [3] E&ecuti'e 2rders Nos( -3 to 1,1! 1,9 and 1,. to 1,-( Pelae= '( Auditor Feneral! supra note 1 at -.-( [9] Pelae= '( Auditor Feneral! supra note 1 at -87( [/] ,d( at -:7( [.] The Barrio Charter Act( [8] ,d( at -81( [:] The particular flaws included the failure to enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by the President! the absence of standards sufficiently precise to a'oid the e'il effects( ,d( at -8/( 1oreo'er! the creation of municipalities was declared to be a function eminently le islati'e in character! and not administrati'e( ,d( at -88( [-] ,d( at -:.! "( Ben =on! concurrin and dissentin ( [17] ,d( at -:3( [11] ollo! p( /( [1,] ,bid( [13] ,d( at 13( [19] ,d. at 19( [1/] ,d. at 1/( [1.] ,d. at 1.( [18] ,d. at 18( [1:] ,bid( [1-] ,d( at 99( The Certification was si ned by 2CC Assistant 0irector 1ariano A( Fabito( [,7] ollo! p( 11( [,1] ,d( at ,,( [,,] ollo! pp( 3.438( [,3] F(;( No( 17387,! . 0ecember 1--9! ,3- #C;A 11( [,9] ,d( at 3,433( [,/] ,d. at 3143,( [,.] ;( 1artin! Public Corporations 51-:3 ed(6 at 1:! citing CooleyKs 1un( Corp( /,( [,8] ,d( at 1: citing 38 A1 >L;(! .,-4.37( [,:] ,bid( [,-] #uch an approach was employed by the Court in 1unicipality of Iapalon v( 1oya! infra( [37] +EB#TE;K# TAC;0 NE+ CNTE;NATC2NA" 0CCTC2NA;)@ Lnabrid ed 51--3 ed(6! p(3( [31] +( BL;T2N! BL;T2NK# "EFA" TAE#AL;L# 53rd ed( ,7716! p( 1( [3,] A(C( B"ACI! B"ACIK# "A+ 0CCTC2NA;) 5.th ed(! 1--76! p( .( [33] 1,/ Phil( 1779 51-.86( [39] 138 Phil( 3/: 51-.-6( [3/] F(;( No( "4913,,! ,- #eptember 1-::! 1.. #C;A 87( [3.] Pelae=! supra note ,! at -:3( [38] Supra note 3,( [3:] ,d( at 177/( [3-] Supra note 39( [97] Particularly! Balaba an was created by E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 3:. by President Carlos P( Farcia( ,d( at 3.7( [91] ,d( at 3.1! citing Aunt v( At%inson! 5Te&( Com( App(6! 1, #(+( ,d 19,! 19/ 51-,-6! reK 377 #(+( ./. 51-,86( [9,] ,d( at 3./( [93] Particularly citin the rulin in Brandenstein v( Ao%e! 171 Cal( 131! 3/ P( /., 51:-96 and Atchison T( R #(B(;(;( '( Board of Commissioners! /: Ian( 1-! 9: P( /:3 51:-86 on one hand! and "an v( City of Bayonne! 89 N(>("( 9//! .: A( -7 51-786H #t( "ouis v( #hields! ., 1o( ,98 51:8.6H #chool 0istrict No( ,/ v( #tate! ,- Ian( /8 51::,6 on the other hand( ,d( at 3.,( [99] ,d( at 3.343.9( [9/] Citing primarily the opinion of L(#( #upreme Court Chief >ustice Charles E'ans Au hes in Chicot County 0raina e 0istrict '( Ba&ter #tate Ban%! 37: L(#( 381! 389 51-976! which noted in part@ DThe actual e&istence of a statute! prior to such a determination [of in'alidity]! is an operati'e fact and may
[1]

8/Pa

Public Corporations
ha'e conse?uences which cannot *ustly be i nored( The past cannot always be erased by a new *udicial declaration( The effect of the subse?uent rulin as to in'alidity may ha'e to be considered in 'arious aspects with respect to particular relations! indi'idual and corporate! and particular conduct! pri'ate and official( Juestions of ri hts claimed to ha'e become 'ested! of status! of prior determinations deemed to ha'e finality and acted upon accordin ly! of public policy in the li ht of the nature of both the statute and of its pre'ious application! demand e&amination(E 1unicipality of 1alaban v( Benito! supra note 39! at 3.9( See also "( Futierre=! concurrin and dissentin ! Cru= v( Ponce Enrile! F(;( No( "48/-:3! 1/ April 1-::! 1.7 #C;A 877! 8134819( [9.] See ollo! pp( ,/437( [98] Supra note 3/( [9:] ,d. at 8,( [9-] Supra note ,3( [/7] ,d( at 1/( [/1] DCreated in 1-/- by 'irtue of E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 3/3! the 1unicipality of #an Andres had been in e&istence for more than si& years when! on ,9 0ecember 1-./! Pelae= '( Auditor Feneral was promul ated( The rulin could ha'e sounded the call for a similar declaration of the unconstitutionality of E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 3/3 but it was not to be the case( 2n the contrary! certain o'ernmental acts all pointed to the #tatePs reco nition of the continued e&istence of the 1unicipality of #an Andres( Thus! after more than fi'e years as a municipal district! E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 189 classified the 1unicipality of #an Andres as a fifth class municipality after ha'in surpassed the income re?uirement laid out in ;epublic Act No( 1/1/( #ection 31 of Batas Pambansa Bl ( 1,-! otherwise %nown as the >udiciary ;eor ani=ation Act of 1-:7! constituted as municipal circuits! in the establishment of 1unicipal Circuit Trial Courts in the country! certain municipalities that comprised the municipal circuits or ani=ed under Administrati'e 2rder No( 33! dated 13 >une 1-8:! issued by this Court pursuant to Presidential 0ecree No( /38( Lnder this administrati'e order! the 1unicipality of #an Andres had been co'ered by the 17th 1unicipal Circuit Court of #an Brancisco4#an Andres for the pro'ince of Jue=on( At the present time! all doubts on the de *ure standin of the municipality must be dispelled( Lnder the 2rdinance 5adopted on 1/ 2ctober 1-:.6 apportionin the seats of the Aouse of ;epresentati'es! appended to the 1-:8 Constitution! the 1unicipality of #an Andres has been considered to be one of the twel'e 51,6 municipalities composin the Third 0istrict of the pro'ince of Jue=on(E ,d( at ,7( [/,] ,bid. [/3] ollo! p( 3,( [/9] ,nfra( [//] 1unicipality of #an Narciso v( 1ende=! supra note ,3! at ,1( [/.] 3,1 Phil( -,, 51--/6( [/8] 333 Phil( 1 51--.6( [/:] 1unicipality of Candi*ay v( Court of Appeals! supra note /. at -37( [/-] Supra note /8! at 1-,41-3( [.7] ollo! p(19( [.1] See ollo! pp( 131! 13/( [.,] -ide Appendi& A to C( Cru=! Constitutional "aw! 1--: ed(! at 9/,! which replicates the 1-:8 Constitution and the appended 2rdinance thereto( [.3] ,d. at 99.( [.9] ,d. at 99:( [./] ,d. at 9,.( [..] The followin are the ei hteen 51:6 municipalities referred to in the 0C"F Certification! and their respecti'e or anic statutes! all of which were enacted after Pelae= was decided in 1-./@ 1( 1idsalip! Gamboan a del #ur S ;epublic Act No( 9:81 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B 1C0#A"CP CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B GA1B2ANFA 0E" #L; enacted without E&ecuti'e appro'al on 1ay :! 1-.8( ,( Pito o! Gamboan a del #ur S ;epublic Act No( .9-7 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B PCT2F2 CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B GA1B2ANFA 0E" #L; appro'ed on >une 18! 1-8,( 3( Na a! Gamboan a del #ur ;epublic Act No( 9:8/ entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B NAFA CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B GA1B2ANFA 0E" #L; appro'ed on 1ay 1:! 1-.8( 9( 1a saysay! 0a'ao S ;epublic Act No( 9-8. entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B 1AF#A)#A) CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B 0A<A2 enacted without E&ecuti'e appro'al on >une 18! 1-.8( /( #ta( 1aria! 0a'ao S ;epublic Act No( 9893 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF A NE+ 1LNCCCPA"CT) CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B 0A<A2 T2 BE IN2+N A# TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B #ANTA 1A;CA appro'ed on >une 1:! 1-..( .( Badian an! Cloilo 4 ;epublic Act No( /77. entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B BA0CANFAN CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B C"2C"2 enacted without E&ecuti'e appro'al on >une 18! 1-.8( 8( 1ina! Cloilo S ;epublic Act No( /99, entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B 1CNA CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B C"2C"2 enacted without E&ecuti'e appro'al on #eptember -! 1-.:( :( 1a uin ! "anao del #ur S Presidential 0ecree 1139 entitled C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B 1AFLCNF CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B "ANA2 0E" #L; by then Pres( Berdinand E( 1arcos on 1ay 9! 1-88( -( Bayo ! Gamboan a del #ur 4 ;epublic Act No( 9:8, entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B BA)2F CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B GA1B2ANFA 0E" #L; appro'ed on 1ay :! 1-.8( 17( Floria! 2riental 1indoro S ;epublic Act No( 9./1 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B F"2;CA CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B 2;CENTA" 1CN02;2 appro'ed on >une -! 1-..( 11( 1aasim! #aran ani S ;epublic Act No( /:.. entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B 1AA#C1 CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B #2LTA C2TABAT2 enacted without E&ecuti'e appro'al on >une ,1! 1-.-( Aowe'er! said municipality was transferred to the Pro'ince of #aran ani by 'irtue of #ection 1 of ;epublic Act No( 8,,: enacted on 1arch 1.! 1--,( 1,( #iayan! Gamboan a del Norte S ;epublic Act No( ,//3 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE BA;;C2 2B #CA)AN CN TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B #CN0ANFAN! P;2<CNCE 2B GA1B2ANFA 0E" N2;TE enacted without E&ecuti'e appro'al on >une ,1! 1-/-( 13( Pres( 1anuel A ;o&as! Gamboan a del Norte S ;epublic Act No( /788 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B P;E#C0ENT 1ANLE" A( ;2TA# CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B GA1B2ANFA 0E" N2;TE enacted without e&ecuti'e appro'al on >une 18! 1-.8( 19( Ialilan an! Bu%idnon S ;epublic Act No( 98::! as amended entitled! AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B IA"C"ANFAN CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B BLIC0N2N appro'ed on >une 1:! 1-..( 1/( "antapan! Bu%idnon S ;epublic Act No( 98:8 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B "ANTAPAN CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B BLIC0N2N appro'ed on >une 1:! 1-..( 1.( Tampa%an! Cotabato S ;epublic Act No( /..1 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B TA1PAIAN CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B #2LTA C2TABAT2 appro'ed on >une ,1! 1-.-( 18( 1aco! Compostela <alley S ;epublic Act No( 9-8/ entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B 1AC2 CN TAE P;2<CNCE 2B 0A<A2 which was enacted without E&ecuti'e appro'al on >une 18! 1-.8( #aid municipality was transferred to the pro'ince of Compostela <alley by 'irtue of #ection 1! ;epublic Act No( :987 which was appro'ed on >anuary 37! 1--:( 1:( New Corella! 0a'ao S ;epublic Act No( 9898 entitled AN ACT C;EATCNF TAE 1LNCCCPA"CT) 2B NE+ C2;E""A! P;2<CNCE 2B 0A<A2 which too% effect upon its appro'al on >une 1:! 1-..( [.8] See E&ecuti'e 2rder No( 178 51-.96( [.:] See Cru=! supra note .,! at 9/,(

:/Pa