Case Summary (G.R. No. 235316)
Key Individuals and Context
• Rosario, J. – Ponente of the Supreme Court decision
• Hon. Briccio C. Ygaña and Hon. Leili Cruz Suarez – RTC Pasig presiding and pairing judges
• Makati City Government – Incorporated from the Municipality of Makati; claimant of EMBO barangays and Inner Fort barangays
• Taguig City Government – Incorporated from the Municipality of Taguig; plaintiff seeking confirmation of its boundaries over Fort Bonifacio
Petitioner
• City of Makati
Respondent
• City of Taguig
Key Dates
• November 22, 1993 – Taguig filed complaint in RTC Pasig (Civ. Case No. 63896)
• July 8, 2011 – RTC Decision in favor of Taguig
• July 30, 2013 – CA Sixth Division Decision reversing RTC and awarding disputed areas to Makati
• June 15, 2016 – Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 208393 finding Makati guilty of forum shopping and fining its counsel
• December 1, 2021 – Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 235316 resolving the Petition for Review on Certiorari
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 10 (plebiscite requirement for boundary alteration)
• Local Government Code criteria for creation or alteration of territorial boundaries
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 (review on certiorari) and Rule 132 (evidence)
Antecedents
Taguig sued Makati and former executive officials to confirm its territorial boundaries over the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and Fort Bonifacio’s Inner Fort barangays, alleging that Proclamations 2475 (1986) and 518 (1990) unilaterally altered its territory without the plebiscite required by the Constitution. Makati countered by denying Taguig’s jurisdictional claims.
Taguig’s Evidence
Taguig introduced Survey Plan Psu-2031 (1909), showing Fort McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) divided into four parcels, with Parcels 3 and 4 lying within Taguig. Taguig offered historical documentation of the 1902 and 1908 U.S. acquisitions of Hacienda Maricaban, subsequent U.S. and Philippine patents, and numerous government proclamations (Nos. 423, 81, 246, 461, 481, 192, 208, 469, 653, 684, 1041, 1217) referencing Psu-2031 and situating Fort Bonifacio in Taguig, Pasig, Parañaque, and Pasay. Taguig’s 1983 cadastral map (MCadm 590-D) depicted Parcels 3 and 4 entirely within Taguig territory.
Makati’s Evidence
Makati relied on Spanish-era registry entries (Cuaderno Suppletorio) and Doña Casal’s 1891 sale contract, plus a U.S. General Order No. 104 (1902) map, claiming the 1902 northern acquisition constituted all of Fort McKinley within Makati. Makati’s expert sketched boundaries showing EMBO areas and Inner Fort barangays as early-20th-century barrios of Makati. It also cited censuses (1918, 1948, 1970–1995), COMELEC and local tax certifications, and later cadastral surveys (MCadm 571-D approved 1979; numerical survey MCAD-571-D approved 1994) to support Makati jurisdiction.
RTC Decision
On July 8, 2011, the RTC of Pasig granted Taguig’s complaint, permanently enjoined Makati from exercising jurisdiction over Parcels 3 and 4, and invalidated Proclamations 2475 and 518 as unconstitutional boundary-altering acts without plebiscite.
Subsequent Proceedings
Makati sought reconsideration and filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA’s Seventh Division, alleging Judge Ygaña’s retirement invalidated the RTC decision. The CA Seventh denied relief, finding no irregularity and tagging Makati for forum shopping. Meanwhile, Makati appealed the RTC decision to the CA Sixth Division (CA G.R. CV No. 98377).
CA Sixth Division Decision
On July 30, 2013, the CA Sixth reversed the RTC on the merits, ruling Taguig failed to properly identify and authenticate key evidence, declared Proclamations 2475 and 518 valid, confirmed Makati’s jurisdiction over EMBO and Inner Fort barangays, lifted the RTC injunction, and ordered Taguig to cease any jurisdictional acts over the disputed areas. The CA deemed the forum-shopping issue moot.
Supreme Court Decision on Forum Shopping
In G.R. No. 208393 (June 15, 2016), the Supreme Court held Makati guilty of wilful and deliberate forum shopping for pursuing simultaneously a petition for annulment of judgment and a motion for reconsideration leading to an appeal. The Court fined Makati’s counsel but did not dismiss Makati’s CA appeal, thereby limiting its sanction to fines.
CA Sixth Division Resolutions (2017)
Relying on the Supreme Court’s forum-shopping finding, the CA Sixth dismissed Makati’s appeal with prejudice in two
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235316)
Background and Procedural History
- On November 22, 1993, Taguig (then Municipality of Taguig) filed Civil Case No. 63896 in the RTC of Pasig against Makati, former national officials, and DENR officers, seeking judicial confirmation of the boundary between Taguig and Makati, nullity of Proclamations 2475 (1986) and 518 (1990), and a preliminary injunction.
- The dispute centered on the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and the Inner Fort barangays within Fort Andres Bonifacio (formerly Fort William McKinley) claimed by both local governments.
- Taguig alleged the two proclamations altered its jurisdiction without a plebiscite, violating the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Makati denied all material allegations and claimed the disputed areas.
- After trial, the RTC in a July 8, 2011 Decision ruled in favor of Taguig, declared Proclamations 2475 and 518 unconstitutional, and made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent.
- Makati’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied; it also filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 120495) and an ad cautelam appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 98377.
- The CA Seventh Division and the CA Sixth Division issued conflicting resolutions on forum-shopping and the merits of the case.
- In G.R. No. 208393 (June 15, 2016), the Supreme Court (SC) found Makati guilty of willful and deliberate forum-shopping, fined its counsel P2,000 each, but did not dismiss the underlying appeal.
- In G.R. No. 235316 (December 1, 2021), the Third Division resolved Makati’s latest Rule 45 petition, denying it on the merits.
Parties’ Versions of the Dispute
- Taguig’s Version:
- A 400-year history as a pueblo, later municipality, with boundaries confirmed by Acts No. 942 (1903) and No. 1308 (1905).
- U.S. acquisitions of Hacienda Maricaban in 1902 and 1908, loci mainly in Taguig; Survey Plan Psu-2031 (1909) divided Fort McKinley into four parcels, showing Parcels 3 and 4 in Taguig.
- Subsequent presidential proclamations (e.g., Proclamation 423, 1957) and cadastral maps (MCadm-590-D, approved 1983) reaffirmed Taguig’s jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio.
- BCDA reconstitution of Psu-2031 (1995) and special patents (Nos. 3595, 3596, 1995) conveyed Parcel 4 lands in Taguig to State corporations.
- Makati’s Version:
- Hacienda Maricaban spanned multiple towns, including Makati (San Pedro Macati); the 1902 sale to the U.S. comprised the portion in Makati.
- OCT 291 (1906) omitted the 1902 portion; subsequent U.S. titles (TCT 1219, 1688, 2288, 61524) did not include Parcel 4.
- Expert-prepared sketch maps based on Spanish-era registry (Cuaderno Suppletorio), 1891 plano, and U.S. National Archives map placed Fort McKinley in Makati.
- Historical censuses (1918, 1948, 1970–1990) and political participation of EMBO and Inner Fort barangays un