Central Barrio v. Asistido
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the allocation of real property taxes between various barrios within the City of Davao. Specifically, barrio Central (also known as Poblacion) claimed a 10% share of taxes collected on real property located within its purported boundaries, as provided by Republic Act 3590. The City Treasurer refused to release this share, citing the inability to determine individual barrio shares due to unfixed boundaries between barrio Central, barrio Agdao, and barrio Bucana. This refusal stemmed from the City's position that the exact location of real property tax collection within each specific barrio could not be ascertained. 2. Procedural History: The Secretary of Finance, on September 3, 1964, ruled that barrios Agdao and Bucana were illegally created in violation of Republic Act 2370, and therefore, their allocated 10% share of taxes should accrue to barrio Central, provided conditions were met. Subsequently, on December 2, 1964, barrio Central filed a petition for declaratory relief with mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Davao against city officials. The petition challenged the legality of Resolution No. 732 creating barrios Agdao and Bucana, questioned an alleged expenditure of P50,000 from the 10% fund by the Auditor, and sought to compel the payment of its share and prevent improper expenditures. After the respondents' motion to dismiss was denied and an answer was filed, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case without prejudice on August 2, 1965, deeming the issues academic due to the passage of Republic Act 4354. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, barrio Central, represented by its barrio captain, appealed the dismissal order to the Supreme Court. The appeal argued against the dismissal, which was based on Republic Act 4354, enacted on June 19, 1965, amending the Charter of Davao City. This new law enumerated the barrios of Davao City, and notably, barrio Central or Poblacion was not mentioned. The Supreme Court's decision affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the omission of barrio Central from the new law prima facie indicated its abolition, rendering the claim for tax shares moot. The Court held that a non-existent barrio could not claim taxes and that the lower court correctly dismissed the suit without prejudice, allowing for a future challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act 4354 if desired.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the case without prejudice on the ground that the issues had become academic due to the passage of Republic Act 4354 was proper. Whether barrio Central, not being enumerated in Republic Act 4354, could still claim a share in real property taxes.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. A non-existent barrio, or a barrio not situated in Davao City, cannot present a claim against it or its officials for a share in taxes under Republic Act 3590. Republic Act 4354, by enumerating the barrios comprising Davao City and not including barrio Central, effectively abolished it. Therefore, the issues raised in the petition became academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the dismissal order: The Court held that the dismissal order was proper. Republic Act 4354, enacted on June 19, 1965, amended the Charter of Davao City and enumerated the barrios comprising it. Petitioner barrio Central or Poblacion was not mentioned in this enumeration. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) applies here, leading to the prima facie conclusion that Republic Act 4354 abolished barrio Central as part of Davao City. Consequently, the court a quo had sufficient and tenable reason to dismiss the suit, as the issues presented had become academic. A barrio that is no longer legally existent or recognized cannot maintain a claim against the city for a share in taxes. The Court reiterated that the power to create or abolish municipal corporations resides in Congress, and Republic Act 4354, until squarely challenged and declared unconstitutional, must be presumed valid. The original suit did not question the validity of Republic Act 4354, as it was enacted after the pleadings were joined and no amendments were made. Therefore, the dismissal without prejudice was correct, as it did not preclude the filing of a new suit to assail the constitutionality of Republic Act 4354. On the claim for real property taxes: The Court ruled that since barrio Central was not enumerated in Republic Act 4354, it was considered abolished. A non-existent barrio, or one that is no longer part of the city's legal framework, cannot claim a share in real property taxes under Republic Act 3590. Republic Act 3590 provides for the share of barrios in real property taxes, but this right is contingent upon the barrio's legal existence and recognition. The passage of Republic Act 4354 effectively removed barrio Central from the roster of recognized barrios within Davao City. Therefore, any claim for tax shares by barrio Central became moot and academic. The Court emphasized that the petition did not assail the validity of Republic Act 4354, which was the basis for the dismissal. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing for a future challenge to the constitutionality of the new law if the petitioner so desired.
Main Doctrine
A barrio that is not recognized or is abolished by law cannot claim a share in real property taxes under Republic Act 3590. A subsequent law that enumerates the barrios of a chartered city, and does not include a particular barrio, effectively abolishes it, rendering any claim for tax shares academic.