PEDRO FORRES, JR., PEDRO NARIO, PEDRO TORRES, SR., ALFREDO DE LA ROSA, SERVILLANO ALBERTO, CESAR MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF ALCALA, PANGASINAN, AND THE MUNIC…

Forres versus Duque

The Case

This is the case of Forres versus Duque. The petitioners are the barrio captain and councilmen of Barrio Pindangan in the Municipality of Alcala, Province of Pangasinan, together with the municipal mayor and the municipal council of that town. They sued the then Provincial Governor of Pangasinan, Francisco Duque, and the election tellers of three new barrios, Pindangan Este, Pindangan Oeste, and Kisikis, which were carved out of the old Barrio Pindangan. The action sought to nullify a resolution of the provincial board approving the division of the barrio and the administrative order of the Governor setting the election of the new barrio councils. The case matters because it fixes who bears the burden of proving compliance with the statutory conditions for creating a new barrio, and it teaches that the presumption of regularity in official action cannot supply a fact the law makes indispensable.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their petition on the thirtieth of July, 1964 before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, questioning the legality of the action taken by the Provincial Board and the Provincial Governor. In its decision dated the tenth of December, 1965, the trial court found in favor of the respondents and dismissed the petition. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was submitted for decision without any brief for the respondents.

Facts

An undated petition bearing the signatures of 334 residents of Barrio Pindangan was submitted to the municipal council of Alcala. Acting on it, the municipal council approved Resolution Number 195 on the first of December, 1961, providing that Barrio Pindangan be divided into two barrios, Pindangan East and Pindangan West. On the fifteenth of December, 1962, the same council approved another resolution reminding the provincial board of the petition of the barrio people of Pindangan Este for the division of Barrio Pindangan into two. On the sixth of December, 1963, a third resolution, Number 80, again reminded the provincial board of the same petition, this time stating that Barrio Pindangan be divided into three equal barrios: East and West Pindangan and Kisikis.

On the fourth of March, 1964, the provincial board of Pangasinan passed Resolution Number 186, approving under Section 3 of Republic Act Number 2370, as amended, otherwise known as the Barrio Charter, the division of Barrio Pindangan into three independent barrios to be denominated as Pindangan East, Pindangan West, and Kisikis. Then, on the twenty-seventh of July, 1964, Governor Duque issued Administrative Order Number 10, invoking his authority under Republic Act Number 3590, the Revised Barrio Charter, designating the second of August, 1964 for the election of the members of the barrio councils of Pindangan Este and Pindangan Oeste and naming the election tellers for that purpose.

The parties stipulated that the total number of registered voters in Barrio Pindangan was 856 in the 1961 elections, rising to 938 in the 1963 elections. The 334 signatories were described only as residents, and even assuming all of them were registered voters, they fell short of a majority.

Issues

• Whether or not the creation of the three new barrios complied with the requirement of a petition by a majority of the voters in the areas affected.
• Whether or not the presumption of regularity of official action may supply the missing showing of majority support for the creation of a new barrio.
• Whether or not the burden of proving compliance with the statutory conditions for creating a new barrio rests on the party upholding the creation when it is challenged in court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Republic Act Number 3590, the Barrio Charter, which took effect on the twenty-third of June, 1963, and which is identical to the previous law, Republic Act Number 2370, provides:

Section 3. The creation of new barrios. Upon petition of a majority of the voters in the areas affected, a new barrio may be created or the name of an existing one may be changed by the provincial board of the province, upon recommendation of the council of the municipality or municipalities in which the proposed barrio is situated. The recommendation of the municipal council shall be embodied in a resolution approved by at least two-thirds of the entire membership of the said council: Provided, however, that no barrio may be created if its population is less than five hundred persons, nor out of chartered cities or Poblaciones of municipalities.

This provision supplies the three indispensable conditions whose compliance the Court measures against the record, and it is the majority-of-voters requirement that the Court finds wanting.

The same section continues:

Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed except under the provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress.

This clause confirms that the statutory requirements are mandatory and cannot be dispensed with by mere official action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirement of a petition by a majority of the voters in the areas affected was not complied with. The petition was signed by only 334 persons, while the registered voters of Barrio Pindangan numbered 856 in 1961 and 938 in 1963. Even assuming that all 334 signatories were registered voters, they did not constitute a majority. The creation of the three new barrios was therefore not upon petition of a majority of the voters.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the trial court's reliance on a presumption that the required majority had petitioned. The trial court had said that the mere fact that the petition was signed by 334 residents, without any showing that there were no other petitioners, does not sufficiently rebut the presumption that the required majority had petitioned. The Court answered that the trial court failed to say just what the basis was of such a presumption, and that if anything the presumption should be otherwise, that since the petition as exhibited in court appeared to have been signed by 334 persons, they were the only ones in favor of the petition.

On the third issue, the Court held that since the law requires, as an indispensable condition, that a majority of the voters in the areas affected must make the petition, the burden of proof is upon the party upholding the legality of the creation of a new barrio which is challenged in court to show that the condition has been duly complied with. In the absence of such a showing, and in the light of the undisputed fact that less than a majority of the voters expressed their conformity to the division, the legality of the creation cannot be upheld.

Doctrine

Under Section 3 of the Barrio Charter, the creation of a new barrio, the alteration of the boundaries of an existing barrio, or even the change of its name requires three things: first, a petition of a majority of the voters in the areas affected; second, the recommendation of the municipal council of the municipality where the proposed barrio is situated, embodied in a resolution approved by at least two-thirds of the entire membership of that council; and third, that the new barrio have a population of not less than five hundred persons and that it not be created out of chartered cities or poblaciones of municipalities.

The majority-of-voters requirement is an indispensable condition. The party upholding the legality of a challenged creation of a new barrio bears the burden of proving that this condition was complied with. The presumption of regularity of official action cannot be stretched to presume a fact that the law makes indispensable, especially where the record shows on its face that the signatories fell short of a majority.

Disposition

The Court reversed the decision appealed from and declared null and void both the questioned resolution of the provincial board of Pangasinan and the administrative order of the Provincial Governor issued pursuant to it, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the burden of proving compliance with the indispensable condition of a majority petition is on the party upholding the creation of a new barrio, and the presumption of regularity cannot supply it. Examiners use this case on the requisites for creating a barrio under the Barrio Charter and on the limits of the presumption of regularity in official acts.