Title
Municipality of Makati vs. Municipality of Taguig
Case
G.R. No. 235316
Decision Date
Dec 1, 2021
A territorial dispute between Makati and Taguig over EMBOs and Fort Bonifacio; Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taguig, affirming jurisdiction based on historical evidence and surveys.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235316)

Procedural Posture

  • Taguig filed suit in the RTC of Pasig (Civil Case No. 63896) on November 22, 1993, seeking judicial confirmation of territorial limits and declaring Presidential Proclamations 2475 (1986) and 518 (1990) unconstitutional to the extent they altered Taguig’s boundaries without a plebiscite.
  • RTC rendered judgment in favor of Taguig on July 8, 2011 (confirming Parcels 3 and 4 as Taguig territory, declaring Proclamations 2475 and 518 unconstitutional insofar as they altered Taguig’s boundaries, and making a preliminary injunction permanent).
  • Makati appealed and pursued multiple remedies (motion for reconsideration ad cautelam, petition for annulment of judgment before the CA), triggering separate CA proceedings and internecine rulings on forum-shopping.
  • The Supreme Court was asked to review CA resolutions dismissing Makati’s appeal on forum-shopping grounds; the Court considered both procedural and substantive issues and ultimately issued the operative decision reviewed here.

Central Issues Presented

  • Whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed Makati’s CA appeal on the ground of Makati’s willful and deliberate forum shopping as previously found by the Supreme Court.
  • Whether, on the merits, the disputed territories (Parcels 3 and 4 of Psu-2031; EMBO and Inner Fort barangays) belong to Taguig or Makati.
  • Whether Presidential Proclamations 2475 (1986) and 518 (1990) are unconstitutional insofar as they affected Taguig’s territorial boundaries without a plebiscite under Article X, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution.

Parties’ Principal Contentions

  • Taguig: The disputed areas historically and legally fall within Taguig’s territory; Psu-2031 and numerous government proclamations and cadastral mappings support Taguig’s claim; Makati engaged in forum shopping and its appeal should be dismissed.
  • Makati: The case presents transcendental importance that warrants resolving the merits despite procedural defects; Makati asserts that the EMBOs and Inner Fort barangays have long been under Makati’s jurisdiction (census records, COMELEC certifications, cadastral surveys); the CA’s earlier merits decision in Makati’s favor should be vindicated and the proclamations declared constitutional.

RTC Judgment (Trial Court Findings)

  • RTC (July 8, 2011) found for Taguig: Fort Bonifacio (Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031) is part of Taguig’s territory; Proclamations 2475 and 518 declared unconstitutional and invalid insofar as they altered Taguig’s boundary without a plebiscite; the court made permanent the preliminary injunction preventing Makati from exercising jurisdiction over Parcels 3 and 4.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Varied Rulings

  • The CA issued differing resolutions and a merits decision at different stages: one CA division (Special Sixth Division) reversed the RTC and ruled for Makati (July 30, 2013), declaring the proclamations constitutional and placing disputed barangays within Makati.
  • Other CA actions and divisions addressed Makati’s petition for annulment of judgment and motions, producing rulings on forum-shopping that were at times inconsistent or considered moot pending Supreme Court resolution.
  • Taguig relied on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling finding Makati guilty of forum shopping to move for dismissal in the CA, and a CA division granted dismissal of Makati’s appeal on that ground.

Supreme Court’s Consideration of Forum Shopping and CA’s Dismissal

  • The Supreme Court recognized that it previously found Makati guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping and imposed fines on Makati’s counsel, but noted the dispositive portion (fallo) of that ruling did not order dismissal of Makati’s CA appeal.
  • The Court explained the legal principle that the dispositive portion of a decision controls over statements in the opinion (sub silentio concept and Rule 131, Section 3(o) presumption that matters were passed upon).
  • Consequently, the CA erred in dismissing Makati’s appeal with prejudice on forum-shopping grounds because the Supreme Court’s dispositive order had not directed dismissal and only imposed fines on counsel.

Decision to Reach the Merits (Judicial Economy and Exceptions to Rule 45)

  • The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to relax strict application of procedural rules under the doctrine that substantial justice and judicial economy may override procedural technicalities, especially where protracted litigation and significant public interest are involved.
  • The Court invoked exceptions to the Rule 45 limitation on factual review (citing Medina v. Asistio and related jurisprudence) and determined that the extraordinary nature of the boundary dispute, the complete trial record, and the public interest justified resolving factual issues on the merits.

Standard of Proof and Critical Date

  • Standard applied: preponderance (greater weight) of evidence, as Taguig was plaintiff asserting a civil claim for territory.
  • The Court fixed the critical date as January 31, 1990 (issuance date of Proclamation No. 518). Acts and evidence produced after the critical date were accorded less probative value unless they were continuations of prior consistent acts rather than attempts to bolster claims made in bad faith.

Evidentiary Assessment: Maps, Surveys, and Documents

  • The Supreme Court admitted and accorded significant probative weight to Psu-2031 (Map of Fort William McKinley / Fort McKinley), finding it to be a contemporaneous and authoritative survey prepared at the instance of the U.S. government and repeatedly used in government issuances. Psu-2031 was found relevant and properly authenticated by DENR and LRA witnesses.
  • The Court contrasted Taguig’s reliance on Psu-2031 and contemporaneous cadastral mappings (approved prior to the critical date) with Makati’s reliance on a private sketch map and later numerical cadastral survey (1994) prepared after the critical date; it found Taguig’s pre-critical-date mappings and official adoption thereof more persuasive.
  • The Court treated the Makati-post-1990 numerical cadastral survey as having limited probative value because it postdated the critical date and could have been produced to strengthen Makati’s position in anticipation of privatization and other developments.

Contemporaneous Official Acts and Proclamations

  • The Court examined presidential proclamations, executive issuances, and other official acts predating the 1973 Constitution and thereafter. Many proclamations (e.g., Proclamation No. 423, 1957, and numerous subsequent proclamations) described Fort McKinley/Fort Bonifacio as situated in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, and Pasay; several proclamations expressly referenced Parcel 4 and identified it as within Taguig’s municipal designation on Psu-2031.
  • The Court found these contemporaneous acts of lawful authorities, especially those of the legislature and the Chief Executive prior to the 1973 constitutional plebiscite requirement, to carry substantial probative weight in resolving territorial scope.

Assessment of Population Data and Political Practice Evidence

  • Makati’s census results, COMELEC certifications of political participation, municipal tax certifications, and birth certificates indicating services or facilities within Makati were considered but judged by the Court to be of lesser probative value than official proclamations and cadastral maps. Census enumeration and administrative practice do not, by themselves, fix territorial boundaries, particularly where legislative or executive acts and formal surveys indicate otherwise.
  • The Court emphasized that the conversion charters for Makati and Taguig contained provisos deferring unresolved boundary disputes to the courts, reinforcing that administrative or political exercises could not supersede judicial resolution of territorial limits.

Constitutional Avoidance on Proclamations’ Validity

  • The Court applied the doctrine of constitutional avoidance: because the dispute could be resolved on non-constitutional grounds (historical evidence, surveys, and contemporaneous official acts), the Court refrained from an outright constitutional adjudication of Proclamations 2475 and 518.
  • The Court did, however, direct that the proclamations be read in a manner consistent with the Court’s holding — i.e., insofar as the proclamations were understood to place the disputed areas within Makati, they should be interpreted consistent with the Court’s finding that Parcels 3 and 4 are within Taguig.

Supreme Court’s Ultimate Holding and Relief

  • The petition for review on certiorari was denied. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC de
      ...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