Title
City of Makati vs. Municipality of Taguig
Case
G.R. No. 163175
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2008
Dispute over Fort Bonifacio jurisdiction between Taguig and Makati; SC upheld dismissal of Makati's case due to litis pendentia and forum shopping.
boundaries
litis pendentia
rule on forum shopping
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 163175)

Factual Background

On March 13, 1992, then President Corazon C. Aquino approved Republic Act No. 7227, which created the BCDA. Under Section 4(a) of the Act, the BCDA’s purposes included “to own, hold and/or administer” specified military reservations and those portions of Metro Manila military camps that the President might transfer to it.

On December 8, 1992, under Section 4(a), then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 40, placing under BCDA administration the Fort Bonifacio portions identified in Plans Swo-00-001265 and Swo-00-001266. Those plans located the concerned portions in the Municipality of Taguig in Metro Manila.

On November 22, 1993, Taguig filed in the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 153 an action for judicial confirmation of its territory and boundary limits against Makati, including the then Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Director of the Land Management Bureau. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 63896. Taguig prayed for a declaration of the unconstitutionality and nullity of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518, which it alleged transferred to Makati certain parts of Fort Bonifacio that were within Taguig’s boundary, without Presidential authority and without a plebiscite as required by constitutional provisions. Taguig also sought provisional relief to restrain respondents from disposing of lots covered by Proclamation No. 518 and to restrain Makati from exercising jurisdiction or treating as part of its territory (i) a 74-hectare area allegedly uninhabited or used as farmlands or wide open spaces prior to Proclamation No. 2475 in 1986, and (ii) the remaining portions of parcels identified as the “Inner Fort” or military camp proper of Fort Bonifacio. After due hearing, Taguig asked for final confirmation that the Fort Bonifacio military reservation consisting of specified parcels belonged to Taguig.

On January 20, 1995, then President Ramos issued Special Patent No. 3595 conveying to the BCDA lands of the public domain in Barangay Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, identified by lots and plans, with stated areas. On February 7, 1995, Ramos issued Special Patent No. 3596, cancelling Special Patent No. 3595 and granting to FBDC other lots described in the same plans. On February 10, 1995, OCT No. SP-001 covering the tracts under Special Patent No. 3596 was issued to FBDC.

Makati’s Subsequent Petition and the Parallel Taguig Case

On April 18, 1996, the City of Makati, together with its local officials and other associated petitioners, filed in the RTC of Makati, Branch 141 a petition for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against the respondents. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-554.

In that petition, Makati sought to prevent Taguig from collecting real estate taxes, fees, and imposing permit and license requirements on lands in Fort Bonifacio and specified barangays. Makati also sought to direct BCDA and FBDC to cease paying realty taxes and municipal taxes and permit/license fees connected with the tracts granted under Special Patent No. 3596, and to enjoin the Register of Deeds from further acting on OCT No. SP-001.

Taguig moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 96-554 on multiple grounds, including that the RTC of Makati lacked jurisdiction over the nature of the action, that another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause, that the petition violated the rule on forum shopping, that it stated no cause of action, and that venue was improperly laid.

FBDC likewise moved to dismiss, invoking the absence of cause of action against FBDC, the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the petition, the inappropriateness of the remedy for annulling Special Patent No. 3596 and OCT No. SP-001, the pendency of another action between the same parties and for the same cause, and an alleged violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94. BCDA also moved to dismiss on the basis that the petition failed to state a cause of action against it and that BCDA was improperly impleaded.

RTC Proceedings: Dismissal for Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping

On September 25, 1998, the RTC of Makati, Branch 141, dismissed Civil Case No. 96-554. The trial court anchored dismissal on litis pendentia and the violation of the anti-forum shopping rules.

The RTC found that the earlier Civil Case No. 63896 before the Pasig RTC involved the same tracts of land covered by Special Patent No. 3596 and OCT No. SP-001, because Taguig sought recovery of those lands and a determination of whether they fell within its territorial jurisdiction. It held that the requisites of litis pendentia were present. It acknowledged that only the City of Makati among the petitioners in Civil Case No. 96-554 was a party in Civil Case No. 63896, but it concluded that the identity element did not require absolute identity of parties; substantial identity sufficed. The RTC ruled that a reversal of party positions did not negate identity for litis pendentia purposes, and that the resolution of the Pasig case would constitute res judicata in the Makati case. The RTC further concluded that petitioners violated Administrative Circular No. 09-94, which prohibited forum shopping, and it dismissed the Makati petition without further discussion of other grounds.

Court of Appeals: Affirmance on Forum Shopping and Litis Pendentia

On June 6, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the requisites of litis pendentia having concurred, petitioners clearly violated forum-shopping rules by filing Civil Case No. 96-554. The Court of Appeals treated the presence of litis pendentia as dispositive of the forum-shopping inquiry, stating that forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present. It therefore found no necessity to dwell on other issues raised on appeal and affirmed the dismissal.

Issues Raised in the Petition

Petitioners assigned three issues before the Court: first, whether they violated the rules on forum shopping; second, whether litis pendentia existed between the Makati RTC petition and the Taguig RTC case; and third, whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error by deciding only on litis pendentia and forum shopping.

The Court distilled the controversy into two core questions: whether litis pendentia was present, and whether petitioners violated forum shopping.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners argued that they did not violate forum-shopping rules because there was no identity of parties, no identity of rights or causes of action, and no identity of reliefs between Civil Case No. 96-554 and Civil Case No. 63896. They characterized Civil Case No. 96-554 as a petition for prohibition and mandamus raising whether then President Ramos committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Special Patent No. 3596 and whether OCT No. SP-001 was void. They characterized Civil Case No. 63896 as a judicial confirmation action by Taguig for its boundary limits. Petitioners maintained that if the validity of Special Patent No. 3596 and OCT No. SP-001 were not addressed in the boundary case, it might later result in conflicting determinations regarding which municipality owned or administered the affected portions of Fort Bonifacio. They also asserted that the two cases sought different reliefs so that res judicata would not apply.

Respondent Taguig countered that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed on litis pendentia and forum shopping. FBDC likewise supported dismissal, reiterating that it was properly dismissed due to litis pendentia and forum shopping. It further argued that dismissal insofar as concerns FBDC should be upheld for lack of cause of action. As to petitioners’ contention that then President Ramos committed grave abuse of discretion, FBDC asserted that the Court of Appeals properly ignored that issue because it had not been raised below.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: The Requisites of Litis Pendentia

The Court explained that litis pendentia means “a pending suit” and has been treated as a ground for dismissal of a civil action that is unnecessary and vexatious because another action is already pending. It held that litis pendentia exists when: (a) there is identity of parties or at least such identity as represents the same interest in both actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity is such that judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other, regardless of which party prevails.

Application: Identity of Parties, Rights, and Reliefs

On the first requisite, identity of parties or substantial identity, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the absence of absolute identity would not prevent application of litis pendentia because only substantial identity was required. It noted that, except for one petitioner who joined as citizen and taxpayer, the other petitioners in Civil Case No. 96-554 had a community of interest with the Cit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms