Case Digest (G.R. No. 235316)
Facts:
Municipality of Makati (now City of Makati) v. Municipality of Taguig (now City of Taguig), G.R. No. 235316, December 01, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division; Rosario, J., writing for the Court.The dispute began when Taguig filed a complaint on November 22, 1993 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig (Civil Case No. 63896) against Makati and several government officials, seeking judicial confirmation of territory and boundaries over the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and Fort Andres Bonifacio (Fort Bonifacio), and declaring Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2475 (1986) and 518 (1990) unconstitutional for allegedly altering Taguig’s boundaries without a plebiscite. Makati answered and trial on the merits followed.
On July 8, 2011, RTC Pasig Branch 153 rendered a decision in favor of Taguig: it confirmed Parcels 3 and 4 of Psu-2031 (Fort Bonifacio) as part of Taguig, declared Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518 invalid insofar as they altered Taguig’s boundaries without plebiscite, and made permanent the preliminary injunction enjoining Makati and DENR officials from actions over Parcels 3 and 4. Makati filed a Motion for Reconsideration ad cautelam and, contemporaneously, a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 120495, alleging the RTC decision was void because Judge Ygana had retired.
Makati’s appeal from the RTC (Notice of Appeal ad cautelam) became CA-G.R. CV No. 98377. The CA Special Former Sixth Division (in the Territorial Dispute Case) on July 30, 2013 reversed the RTC and held the EMBO and Inner Fort barangays to be within Makati, declared Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518 constitutional, and lifted the injunction. Meanwhile, in the Annulment Case before a different CA division, the CA (Seventh Division) ultimately dismissed Makati’s petition for annulment as premature and engaged in a series of resolutions on forum-shopping issues.
The Supreme Court then decided City of Taguig v. City of Makati, G.R. No. 208393 (June 15, 2016), finding Makati guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping and fining its counsel but, in its dispositive portion, modifying prior CA resolutions without ordering dismissal of Makati’s appeal. Relying on that ruling, Taguig moved to dismiss Makati’s CA appeal for forum shopping; the CA Special Former Sixth Division granted the motion and dismissed Makati’s appeal with prejudice in a Resolution dated March 8, 2...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss Makati’s appeal on the ground of forum shopping in light of this Court’s earlier ruling in G.R. No. 208393?
- On the merits, which city—Makati or Taguig—has territorial jurisdiction over Parcels 3 and 4 of Psu-2031 (Fort Bonifacio), including the EMBO and Inner Fort barangays?
- Do Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2475 (1986) and 518 (1990) unconstitutionally alter Taguig’s boundaries without a plebiscite under Artic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)