THE MUNICIPALITY OF PASACAO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CAMARINES SUR AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIBMANAN, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

The municipalities of Pasacao and Libmanan, both of the province
of Camarines Sur, are situated along the Ragay Gulf.   At the coastal barrio of Tinalmud they are
separated by a river, which also divides their respective marine waters from
which they derive income by leasing the same to fishing concessionaires.   Sometime in 1952 a dis­pute arose between
them when the municipality of Libmanan began claiming a certain portion of the
marine waters allegedly belonging to the municipality of Pasacao.   They agreed to refer the dispute to the
Provincial Board of Camarines Sur for decision.   The Board in turn referred the matter to a
commissioner for investigation and after the commissioner submitted his report
dated January 2, 1953, the Board, on February
13, 1954, approved Resolution No. 57 awarding the disputed area to the
Municipality of Libmanan.

On April 5, 1954 the municipality of Libmanan filed an ordinary
civil action (Civil Case No. 2631) against the municipality of Pasacao in the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur for recovery of possession of the municipal waters awarded to the former by
virtue of Resolution No. 57. On March 21, 1961, while the said action was still
pending trial, the municipality of Pasacao instituted its own pro­ceeding – a
petition for certiorari against the municipality of Libmanan and the Provincial
Board of Camarines Sur for the annulment of Resolution No. 57, alleging that
the same had been enacted by the Board with grave abuse of discretion because:  (1) the petitioner was not informed of the
report of the commissioner who had been directed to investigate the dispute
between the two municipalities nor given a hearing thereon before the
resolution was passed; (2) the resolution did not have the concurrence of the
Provincial Governor, but only of the two members of the Provincial Board; and
(3) the report of the Commissioner was actually in favor of the petitioner.

The respondents
respectively answered the petition but the municipality of Libmanan
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the trial court in
an order issued on January 10, 1963.  
The herein petitioner moved to reconsider the order of dismissal, and
after the motion was denied elevated the case to us on appeal.

The order appealed from must be sustained.   The parties are agreed that the law which
governs the dispute between the two municipalities is Section 2167 of the
Revised Administrative Code, which provides:

“Section 2167. – Municipal boundary dispute – How
Settled. – Disputes as to jurisdiction of municipal governments over places
or barrios shall be decided by the provincial boards of the provinces in which such municipalities
are situated, after an investigation at which the municipalities concerned
shall be duly heard.  From the decision of
the provincial board appeal may be taken by the municipality aggrieved to the
Secretary of Interior (now Office
of the Executive Secretary), whose decision
shall be final. x x x “

The circumstance that the Provincial Board enacted the questioned
resolution without first informing the petitioner of the commissioner’s report
was not a grave abuse of discretion, as pointed out by the trial court, but a
mere irregularity which could have been a ground to ask the Board to reconsider
its action, and if turned down, to appeal to the proper authority.   The fact is that when the respondent municipality filed Civil Case No. 2631 on
April 5, 1954, less than two months after the approval of Resolution No.
57, the petitioner came to know of its exist­ence, since it was alleged in the
complaint as the ground for the right of possession sought to be enforced; and
subsequently, in May 1955, a copy of said resolution was presented in
evidence.   Even then, therefore, the
petitioner should have taken the necessary steps to elevate the matter on
appeal to the office of the President, pursuant to Section 2167 of the Revised
Administrative Code.   Or if the
petitioner believed that its remedy lay in asking for the annulment of the
resolution, it should have filed the corresponding action for that purpose at
the time, or put up the alleged nullity as a defense in the action itself filed
by the respondent municipality for
recovery of possession.   Certiorari is
not a proper substitute for appeal, or for an action or defense which is
available, since it is justified only when there is no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  
And when, as in this case, the petition for certiorari was not filed
until after the lapse of more than six years from the time the question should
have been brought up, laches would constitute an additional obstacle to the
proceeding.

The contention that the challenged resolution is null and void
because it did not have the concurrence of the Provincial Governor does not
deserve serious considera­tion.   It
appears that when the resolution was approved the said official was absent on
official business, and one of the two Board members acted in his place as
presiding officer in the session held for the purpose.   The fact that the Governor did not
thereafter question the authority of the said Board member to preside was in
effect a ratification of the action taken.  
The petitioner has not cited any law to support the suggestion that
whenever the Provincial Governor is absent the Provincial Board is rendered
powerless to carry on its corporate functions.

The last argument of the petitioner is that the Provincial Board did not follow the recommendation of
the Commissioner whom it had empowered to investigate the dispute.   This, however, is beside the point, because
the decision was in the hands of the Board, subject only to appeal to the
office of the President, and the issue in
this case is one of power or authority, not the correct­ness of the decision actually rendered and
embodied in Resolution No. 57. 

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to
costs. 

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano,
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Reyes and Zaldivar, JJ.,
are on leave.