LGU Boundary Dispute Resolution Process (Philippines)

This article explains, in Philippine legal context, how boundary disputes between and among local government units (LGUs)—provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays—are prevented, initiated, heard, decided, and appealed. It also covers evidence, technical surveys, timelines, interim arrangements (taxes, policing, voter assignment), and common pitfalls. It is a general guide and not a substitute for counsel.

1) What counts as a “boundary dispute”

An LGU boundary dispute is a conflict over the political boundary—not private land ownership—separating two LGUs. It affects:

Jurisdiction (police powers, licensing, zoning, taxation, service delivery)
Elections (precinct assignments, districting)
Statistics & planning (census, resource allocation)

Private land overlaps are resolved through land registration/civil courts; LGU boundary cases deal with the official line between political units.

2) Core legal framework (high-level)

1987 Constitution, Art. X: Alteration of LGU boundaries requires law/ordinance and plebiscite in affected units (for actual changes).
Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160):
- Sec. 118–119: Primary administrative jurisdiction and procedure for boundary disputes.
- Appeals from sanggunian decisions go to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under the Rules of Court.
LGU charters, provincial/city/municipal/barangay ordinances: Define metes and bounds.
Technical agencies: NAMRIA (geodesy/mapping), DENR-LMB (land management records), PSA (official maps for statistics).
Special regimes: ARMM/BARMM or autonomous arrangements, and NCIP/CADT contexts (ancestral domains) may add layers but do not, by themselves, amend political boundaries.

3) Who decides: jurisdiction by LGU level

Under the LGC, sanggunian with jurisdiction settles the dispute administratively:

Barangay vs. barangay in the same city/municipality: Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan.
Barangay vs. barangay in different municipalities of the same province: Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Municipality vs. municipality in the same province: Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
City/municipality vs. city/municipality of different provinces: Sanggunians of the provinces concerned (typically the Sangguniang Panlalawigan with proper notice to both provinces; joint/parallel proceedings are common).
Disputes involving highly urbanized or independent component cities: Take guidance from the LGC’s hierarchy; if not under a province, practice is to proceed before the proper sanggunian with supervisory coverage or the appropriate court when no sanggunian has clear administrative reach.

Exhaustion rule: Courts generally require parties to exhaust the administrative remedy (the appropriate sanggunian under Sec. 118–119) before filing in court, except for pure questions of law or grave abuse of discretion.

4) Two different tracks: “settling” vs. “changing” boundaries

Settlement/confirmation: Clarifies the existing line based on laws/charters/records. No plebiscite required.
Alteration/creation/merger/division: Changes the boundary; requires law/ordinance plus plebiscite approving the change. Parties sometimes discover that what they want is alteration, not settlement—a different, longer process.

5) Step-by-step administrative process (Sec. 119, LGC – standard practice)

A) Pre-filing due diligence

Gather foundational instruments: enabling law/charter, provincial/city/municipal/barangay ordinances creating or redefining units, cadastral plans, and official maps.
Engage NAMRIA (and/or DENR-LMB) for technical description checks and geodetic control points.

B) Initiation

Resolution of the LGU (or formal petition) filed with the proper sanggunian (see §3).
Contents: parties; narration of facts; specific boundary segment(s) in dispute; legal bases; relief sought (confirmation of line); annexes (maps, TDs, survey returns, statutes, certification from PSA/NAMRIA if available).
Notice to the adverse LGU and docketing.

C) Mandatory amicable settlement window

The sanggunian first facilitates conciliation between LGUs (often via a Boundary Dispute Technical Working Group with representatives + DILG + NAMRIA).
If a settlement is reached:
- Reduce into written agreement,
- Each LGU enacts an ordinance adopting the common line,
- Monument the boundary (ground markers), and
- Transmit to DILG/NAMRIA/PSA for alignment of official maps.

D) Formal hearing if no settlement

Position papers, pre-trial/clarificatory conference, and evidentiary hearings.
Technical surveys may be ordered: joint ground survey, reconstruction of metes and bounds based on the controlling legal instrument (see §6).
Timeline guidance: The LGC contemplates a prompt resolution (commonly observed 60 days from submission for decision, after hearings/clarifications are complete).

E) Decision and relief

The sanggunian issues a written decision: factual findings, legal/technical bases, coordinates/technical description of the confirmed boundary, and implementation directives (monumentation; updates to tax maps, GIS layers, precincts).
Motion for reconsideration may be allowed by local rules.

F) Appeal

Any party may elevate the decision to the Regional Trial Court within the period and mode provided by the Rules of Court (typically via Rule 43 petitions on quasi-judicial decisions or the applicable mode recognized by jurisprudence).
Further review may lie with the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court on questions of law/grave abuse.

6) Evidence & what actually carries the day

A) Hierarchy of controls

Statute/Charter creating the LGU (or subsequent law redefining it).
Provincial/city/municipal ordinance lawfully creating/altering barangay lines.
Official technical descriptions and maps (NAMRIA, DENR-LMB cadastral records, PSA base maps).
Historical exercise of jurisdiction (tax collection records, policing, school and health center administration, voters’ lists).
Private documents and community reputation (lowest weight; corroborative only).

B) Technical essentials

Geodetic coordinates referenced to current Philippine datum (e.g., PRS92/PRS2019).
Tie points / control points (Bureau of Lands Location Monuments, barangay monuments).
Monumentation plan (placement, material, coordinates, maintenance).
Survey returns: joint or independent, but ideally counter-signed by both LGUs’ representatives/NAMRIA to avoid unilateralism.

C) Typical annexes

Certified true copies of laws/ordinances, survey plans, cadastral maps, tax mapping sheets, school and police jurisdiction memos, election precinct certifications (COMELEC), census barangay index (PSA), and GIS shapefiles if maintained.

7) Interim arrangements while the case is pending

Status quo on basic services and policing to avoid service gaps.
Temporary revenue handling for the contested area:
- Continue collection by the LGU that has de facto administration, OR collect under escrow/provisional sharing as agreed.
Business permits: honor existing permits; new permits subject to mutual clearance to avoid double issuances.
Elections & census: seek COMELEC/PSA guidance; precinct assignments usually maintain last uncontested mapping until a final boundary is recognized.

8) Enforcement after decision

Ground monumentation per the decision (joint team with a NAMRIA/DENR-LMB geodetic engineer).
Synchronize all datasets: tax maps (assessor/treasurer), zoning/GIS, police and school districting, health catchments, voter precincts.
Public notice and community information (barangay assemblies) to mitigate friction.
Recordation with DILG/PSA/NAMRIA so future maps carry the corrected line.

9) Special contexts & wrinkles

Metro Manila / Independent cities: Where no provincial sanggunian has reach, parties often proceed under the LGC framework to the appropriate sanggunian/court, with DILG coordination and NAMRIA tech support.
Ancestral domains (NCIP/CADT): CADT delineations may overlap with LGU maps, but do not amend political boundaries. Coordinate early with NCIP to avoid inconsistent field operations.
Water boundaries / rivers: Apply thalweg/centerline principles if the law ties the line to a river; accretion/avulsion analysis may be relevant.
Islands/shorelines: Use baseline and tidal datum consistent with the technical description; expect resurvey after significant geomorphic change.
Plebiscite trap: If the parties’ “compromise” alters the boundary beyond what the controlling law provides, you’ve crossed into alteration territory—plebiscite is required. Keep settlements within the existing legal line.

10) Practical timelines & service standards (typical)

Conciliation launch: within 15–30 days from filing.
Amicable settlement window: 30–60 days (extendable by agreement).
Surveys/hearings: depends on terrain and availability of records; plan 60–120 days for a full technical cycle.
Decision writing: target within 60 days from submission for decision.
Appeal: follow Rules of Court periods (calendar strictly).

(Actual durations vary with complexity, weather/access for surveys, and completeness of records.)

11) Do’s & Don’ts for LGUs

Map the exact segment in dispute (start/end points, length, coordinates).
Front-load evidence: certified copies, sworn narratives, and NAMRIA-vetted overlays.
Keep it technical: avoid politicized rhetoric—stick to charter text and metes & bounds.
Protect citizens: maintain services; avoid duplicate fees.
Document status quo arrangements in writing.

Don’t

Unilaterally tax anew in a hotly contested area without at least notifying the other LGU and citizens.
Issue overlapping permits; if unavoidable, time-limit and note “subject to boundary case”.
Confuse settlement with alteration—if the end goal is to move a line, you’ll need plebiscite.
Skip administrative remedies unless the case is a pure legal question.

12) Sample contents of a boundary-dispute petition (checklist)

Caption & parties (LGUs; executives; counsels)
Jurisdictional basis (Sec. 118–119, LGC)
Material facts (creation laws, prior ordinances, historical administration)
Specific boundary segment (bearings/distances; contentious landmarks)
Issues (e.g., which instrument controls; misplotted cadastral line)
Relief (confirmation of boundary per Annex Map A technical description)
Annexes (laws, ordinances, maps, surveys, tax and policing records, voter/precinct certifications, NAMRIA notes)

13) Common failure points

Missing controlling instrument (e.g., relying on a later map that never amended the charter).
Outdated geodetic datum (coordinates don’t match modern PRS).
Unmonumented settlements—paper agreements with no ground markers cause future relapses.
No parallel updates across offices (assessor, treasurer, MPDO/CPDO, police, schools, PSA/COMELEC).
Skipping the sanggunian and going straight to court—often dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies.

14) Quick decision tree (for officials)

Is this truly a political boundary issue (not private land)?
- If no → Use land registration/civil remedies.
Which sanggunian has primary jurisdiction? (see §3)
Can we settle within the existing legal line?
- If yes → Draft settlement + twin ordinances + monuments.
- If no → Proceed to hearings; prepare for technical survey.
Decision issued. Appeal?
- If yes → File under Rules of Court.
- If no → Implement: monument, synchronize maps, notify PSA/COMELEC/DILG.

15) Final notes

Evidence wins these cases. Charters and ordinances control; maps and surveys explain them on the ground.
Citizens first. Keep services stable, avoid double taxation, and communicate clearly.
Think long-term. Monument the line, and synchronize every official dataset to prevent the dispute from resurfacing.

Disclaimer

This is a general legal overview of LGU boundary disputes in the Philippines. Facts differ; procedures in BARMM, highly urbanized cities, and Metro Manila may entail special handling. If you share your specific LGUs, the disputed segment, and available documents, I can draft a tailored step-plan and a model petition/settlement ordinance you can use.