Scribd
Upload
372 views

Case 4 Municipality of Famy Vs Siniloan

This case involves a boundary dispute between the Municipalities of Famy and Siniloan over two barangays. A 1962 decision by the Provincial Board ruled that Siniloan had jurisdiction over the barangays, but Famy cited an earlier 1942 decision granting it jurisdiction. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan sided with Famy. Siniloan obtained a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent implementation of the Sangguniang resolutions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion as Siniloan stood to suffer irreparable injury and the injunction was meant to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the case.

Uploaded by

Cyrus Dait
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
372 views

Case 4 Municipality of Famy Vs Siniloan

This case involves a boundary dispute between the Municipalities of Famy and Siniloan over two barangays. A 1962 decision by the Provincial Board ruled that Siniloan had jurisdiction over the barangays, but Famy cited an earlier 1942 decision granting it jurisdiction. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan sided with Famy. Siniloan obtained a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent implementation of the Sangguniang resolutions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion as Siniloan stood to suffer irreparable injury and the injunction was meant to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the case.

Uploaded by

Cyrus Dait
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MUNICIPALITY OF FAMY, LAGUNA, VS.

MUNICIPALITY OF SINILOAN, LAGUNA


[ G.R. No. 203806, February 10, 2020 ]
Leonen
FACTS:
Over a century ago, Municipality of Famy was incorporated into Municipality of Siniloan through Act
No. 939, series of 1903. However, through Executive Order No. 72, series of 1909, Famy was
separated and became another entity. This eventually led to a boundary dispute between the now
different municipalities over two (2) barangays, Kapatalan and Liyang. To resolve the dispute, the
Provincial Board of Laguna (Provincial Board) rendered its March 26, 1962 Decision ruling that
Siniloan had jurisdiction over the barangays.

Siniloan filed a Petition to Revive Judgment before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna seeking
the implementation of the Provincial Board's Decision.

Opposing Siniloan's Petition, Famy submitted a copy of an earlier July 4, 1942 Decision rendered by
the Provincial Board, where it had granted Famy jurisdiction over the disputed barangays.

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan sustained Famy's position. In its Resolution it found that the Decision
that Siniloan had jurisdiction over the barangays could not be executed because it did not specify the
metes and bounds of the municipalities' territories. It noted that placing the barangays under Siniloan's
jurisdiction significantly reduced Famy's population and land area to a point that went below the law's
requirements. Additionally, Siniloan was found to have abandoned its claim over Barangay Kapatalan
when it ceased its internal revenue allotment to the barangay.

Respondent reiterates that taxes for real estate properties in Barangays Kapatalan and Liyang were
being paid to the Municipal Treasurer of Siniloan. Were the injunctive relief not granted, it posits that
its internal revenue allotment would have been considerably reduced.

 Regional Trial Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
from implementing its Resolutions No. 498 and 88

Famy then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the Regional
Trial Court's Orders. Among others, it claimed that the trial court gravely erred in issuing the injunctive
relief, as the writ cannot be issued incidental to a petition for prohibition.

ISSUE:
whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction in favor of respondent Municipality of Siniloan.

Ruling:
The Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary
injunction.

A perusal of the records reveals that respondent sufficiently alleged and substantiated its clear legal
right sought to be protected through the writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent, who had in its
favor a March 26, 1962 Decision declaring its jurisdiction over the barangays, stood to suffer
irreparable injury through the Sangguniang Panlalawiigan Resolutions. It exhibited that since the ruling
was issued, it had exercised jurisdiction over Barangays Kapatalan ang Liyang on adjudication of
criminal cases, payment of real property taxes, and construction of infrastructure projects. Further, it
posited that it was bound to lose a portion of its internal revenue allotment, pending the disposition of
its case.

Preliminary injunctions are issued to preserve the status quo, "the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested
status that precedes the actual controversy, that which is existing at the time of the filing of the
case." In this case, the injunctive relief was sought to bar the implementation of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan Resolutions, which would have significantly affected the exercise of power of the
municipalities in conflict.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy