4/14/25, 9:40 AM

The Supreme Court has upheld the abolition of Barangay (Brgy.) San Rafael and affirmed its merger with Brgy. Dacanlao in Calaca, Batangas—bringing closure to a long-standing legal dispute spanning over two decades.
In a decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the Court En Banc nullified Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009, which had attempted to reverse the earlier merger of San Rafael with Dacanlao.

The controversy dates back to 1997, when the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas enacted Ordinance No. 05 (the "First Ordinance"), formally abolishing Brgy. San Rafael and merging it with Brgy. Dacanlao. A plebiscite was conducted in 1998, with the majority of voters favoring the merger.

Despite the favorable vote, some residents challenged the ordinance in court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the validity of the First Ordinance and the plebiscite, but its implementation was temporarily suspended pending the resolution of legal proceedings. The RTC’s decision was subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA).

In 2009, while the appeal was pending, the Sanggunian passed Ordinance No. 002 (the "Second Ordinance"), effectively repealing the First Ordinance and seeking to re-establish Brgy. San Rafael as a separate barangay. However, this reversal was enacted without holding a new plebiscite or securing the required certification from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) to prove compliance with the Local Government Code’s minimum population requirement of 2,000 residents.

Citing the Second Ordinance, the CA dismissed the earlier appeal, deeming the matter moot. However, a new petition was later filed by Justo Q. Sinag and other concerned citizens, challenging the validity of the Second Ordinance before the RTC. They argued that it failed to comply with the legal requirements for the creation or re-establishment of a local government unit (LGU).

The RTC dismissed their petition, ruling that the Second Ordinance did not create a new barangay nor divide Dacanlao, since the First Ordinance was allegedly never implemented. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed both lower courts. It ruled that the Second Ordinance violated the Constitution and the Local Government Code, which mandate both a plebiscite and proof of sufficient population for the creation or re-creation of a barangay. At the time of the ordinance, Brgy. San Rafael had only 611 residents, far below the 2,000-resident threshold required by law.

The Court concluded that Brgy. San Rafael was lawfully merged with Brgy. Dacanlao following the 1998 plebiscite and that the subsequent attempt to revive San Rafael as a separate barangay was legally invalid.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa argued that the Second Ordinance was a valid legislative act by the Sanggunian to repeal its earlier ordinance. He maintained that since the merger had not been implemented, San Rafael remained a barangay in legal existence and that no new barangay was being created.

​