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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 163175)

Background and Legislative Framework

The case stems from Republic Act No. 7227, which was enacted on March 13, 1992, to establish the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). Under Section 4 (a) of this Act, the BCDA was authorized to administer military reservations, including various military camps in Metro Manila. Following this legislative action, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 40 on December 8, 1992, which assigned portions of Fort Bonifacio to the BCDA, particularly lands identified in certain official plans. These lands were located within the Municipality of Taguig.

Initial Legal Action by Taguig

On November 22, 1993, the Municipality of Taguig filed a lawsuit in the RTC of Pasig City against Makati and various government officials, seeking judicial confirmation of its territorial boundaries. The complaint challenged the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamations that had vested parts of Fort Bonifacio in Makati without adequate authority or plebiscite, demanding a temporary restraining order to prevent certain actions by Makati and its officials.

Makati's Counteraction

In response to Taguig's legal actions, on April 18, 1996, Makati, along with city officials, initiated a separate petition for prohibition and mandamus in the RTC of Makati. This petition sought to restrain Taguig from collecting taxes and fees on lands within Fort Bonifacio, and it implicated BCDA and the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC) regarding issues of jurisdiction and financial obligations over the disputed lands.

Proceedings and Dismissals

The Municipality of Taguig moved to dismiss Makati's petition on various grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and the existence of another pending case. The RTC of Makati ultimately dismissed the case on September 25, 1998, citing litis pendentia—the principle that one action is pending before the courts, which rendered the second action unnecessary. The RTC determined there was sufficient identity between the two cases, as they asserted similar interests and involved the same geographical area.

Appellate Review

Makati appealed the dismissal, leading to a ruling by the Court of Appeals on June 6, 2003, which upheld the lower court's decision. The appellate court confirmed that the existence of litis pendentia and the violation of rules against forum shopping warranted the dismissal of the petition without further consideration of other claims.

Legal Contentions on Appeal

In the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the appellate ruling, contesting the presence of litis pendentia and asserting that there was no violation of forum shopping since they believed that the two cases addressed different issues. They argued that the matters regarding the validity of Special Patent No. 3596 and the corresponding certificate of title were distinct from the territorial claims being litigated in the Pasig case.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.