GR103702 SAN NARCISO VS SAN ANDRES

What are the Facts?

- On August 20, President Garcia issued Executive order No. 353 creating the
Municipal District of San Andres Quezon
- This was upon the request of the Provincial Board of Quezon in its Resolution
No. 8 of May 24, 1959
- By the virtue of Executive Order No. 174 dated October 5, 1965 issued by
President Macapagal, the municipal district of San Andres gained the status of a
fifth class municipality beginning July 1, 1963 by the operation of Section 2 of
Republic Act 1515
- Section 2 of the Republic Act 1515 stipulates that ‘Any fifth class municipality, the
annual receipts of which shall fail to average four thousand pesos for four
consecutive fiscal years shall ipso facto be classified as a first class municipal
district and shall thereafter be governed by the provisions of Article six, Chapter
sixty- four of the Administrative Code, as hereinabove amended. Similarly, any
first class municipal district the annual receipts of which shall average more than
four thousand pesos for four consecutive fiscal years shall ipso facto be
classified as a fifth class municipality and shall thereafter be governed by the
provisions of Articles one to five, Chapter sixty-four of the same Code.’
- The conversion of San Andres was affirmed by the House of Representatives by
the virtue of House Bill No. 4864
- On June 5, 1989, the Municipality of San Narciso filed a petition for quo warranto
with RTC, Branch 62 against the officials of San Andres.
- The petition sought the declaration of nullity of Executive Order No.53 and
prayed that the officials of San Andres be permanently ordered to refrain from
performing their duties and functions
- The petitioners argued that Executive Order No. 353 was a clear usurpation of
the inherent powers of legislature, a violation of the constitution and the principle
of separation of powers
- The petitioners argued that the officials of San Andres had no right to exercise
their duties that belonged to San Narciso
- Respondents asked for the dismissal of the petition
- San Andres have already been existing since 1959, its corporate personality can
no longer be assailed
 - The petition is quo warranto thus the petitioner municipality is not the proper
party to bring the action, the prerogative is reserved to the state acting through
the Solicitor General.
- On November 27, 1991, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the
case had become academic and moot due to the enactment of LGC of 1991
particularly referring to the Section 441 of the said statute.
- The motion was opposed by the petitioner because the legality of existence of
San Andres was void ab initio (latin for void from the beginning)
- On December 2, 1991, the lower court finally dismissed the petition for lack of
cause action, for what it felt that the matter belongs to the state, and whatever
defects were present in its creation were already cured by RA 7160
- In January 17, 1992, the same court denied the petition for motion for
reconsideration of the same municipality

What are the issues?

- The petitioner filed a ‘review for certiorari’ on the grounds that the lower court has
“acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of
jurisdiction
- The petitioner asserts that the existence of a municipalitycreated by a null and
void presidential order may be attacked either directly or collaterally by anyone
whose rights are affected.
- The petitioner contends that an unconstitutional act is not a law, creates no office
and is inoperative such as though it has never been passed.
- The Supreme Court explains that the special civil action of quo warranto is a
prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by
what warrant he holds a public office.
- When the inquiry is focused on the legal existence of a body politic, the action is
reserved to the state. It must be brought in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines and commenced by the Solicitor General or Fiscal by the direction of
the President of he Philippines.
- The rules of court also allows an individual to commence an action for quo
warranto but only when he claims to be entitled to a public office unlawfully held
or exercised by one another
- However, the quo warranto filed by the petitioner is virtually a denunciation of the
authority of San Andres to exist or to act in that capacity
- The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the petition for quo
warranto had been filed before the enactment of LGC of 1991 thus they have
earned the vested right to do so. Any attempt to apply the Section 442 of LGC
would be violative of due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution.
 - The petitioner’s theory could have been considered if it had been seasonally
brought. It took them almost 30 years to challenge the legality of the existence of
San Andres.
- In the same manner that the failure of a public officer to question his ouster or to
challenge the right of one another to hold a position within a one-year period can
abrogate an action belatedly filed
- The peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case makes it hard to deny the
status of San Andres as a de facto municipal corporation.
- Certain governmental acts all pointed to the State’s recognition of the continued
existence of the Municipality of San Andres.
- Executive Order No. 174 classified the Municipality of San Andres as a fifth class
municipality after having surpassed the income requirement laid out in Republic
Act 1515
- Section 31 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, constituted as municipal circuits, in the
establishment of Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the country, certain
municipalities that comprised the municipal circuits organized under
Administrative Order No. 33, dated 13 June 1978, issued by this Court pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 537. Under this administrative order, the Municipality
of San Andres had been covered by the 10th Municipal Circuit Court of San
Francisco-San Andres for the province of Quezon.
- All doubts on the de jure status standing of the municipality must be dispelled
- There is no unconstitutionality of applying Article 442 to the context of San
Andres
- The ordinance in 1986 that serves as basis for apportionment of districts
recognizes the existence of San Andres as a Municipalty
What is the ruling or decisiom?
- Petition for Instant Certiorari is dismissed