THE CITY OF CALOOCAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CITY MAYOR, DALE GONZALO R. MALAPITAN VS. THE CITY OF MALABON, AMADO S. VICENCIO, MARK ALLAN G. YAMBAO, DANILO V. DUMALAOG, LAURO B. BORJA, CYNTHIA A. GUTIERREZ, RICKY R. BERNARDO, EDILBERTO G. TORRES, PAYAPA V. ONA, ISAGANI P. SANTOS, BENJAMIN GALAURAN, ARNO

Ruling

Accordingly, Cammayo et al. prayed that Paragraph 2 of RA 9019 be declared unconstitutional and Malabon be permanently enjoined from exercising any political and jurisdictional authority over the portions of the subject barangays included in Section 2 of RA 9019. 14 In its Answer, 15 Malabon countered that Cammayo et al. do not have legal standing to file the petition as the matters involved in the case primarily concern Caloocan. Moreover, it argued that the technical description of RA 9019 should prevail over RA 5502 16 (or the Revised Charter of the City of Caloocan, amending RA 3278) since the latter merely described in general terms the territorial boundaries of Caloocan. Further, Malabon maintained that the contested portions of the subject barangays have always been part of its territorial jurisdiction; hence, RA 9019 did not cause any alteration of the territorial jurisdiction of Caloocan. Being a part of Malabon, therefore, Malabon argued that there was no need to conduct a plebiscite in the subject barangays as the referendum conducted on April 21, 2001 to convert it to an HUC complied with the requirement of the law. 17 Finally, Malabon asserted that Cammayo et al.'s recourse to a petition for declaratory relief is improper since the procedure prescribed by law to resolve boundary disputes, as in this case, is that which is provided under Sections 118 and 119 of the LGC. 18 Subsequently, on April 28, 2004, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its Comment 19 to the Petition 20 claiming that: the petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of RA 9019; 21 but, since factual issues are yet to be resolved by the trial court, the determination of the constitutionality of RA 9019 is premature at that point. 22 Meanwhile, on July 15, 2004, Caloocan filed a motion for intervention, with attached complaint in intervention, 23 which the RTC admitted in an Order 24 dated August 24, 2004. In its Complaint in Intervention, Caloocan asserted that Section 2 of RA 9019 blatantly violates Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution which requires the conduct of a plebiscite in the barangays to be affected by a change in the territorial boundaries. Additionally, Caloocan underscored that the Bureau of Lands has already recognized and confirmed that the land where the subject barangays are situated belong to it. Thus, Caloocan prayed that Section 2 of RA 9019 be declared unconstitutional and that the subject barangays be declared as part of its territory subject to its legal, political, and administrative control. 25 During trial, Cammayo et al. presented the testimonies of Cammayo, as the former councilor for Caloocan for the years 1998 and 2001; and Mercedes Payno (Payno), a former barangay kagawad of Barangay 160. In gist, Cammayo testified that during his investigation into the alleged takeover of Malabon over the subject barangays, he discovered a consolidated subdivisi