G.R. No. 235316 - Municipality of Makati vs. Municipality of Taguig

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235316)

Factual Background

Taguig sued Makati on November 22, 1993 seeking judicial confirmation of territorial limits and declaration of the unconstitutionality of Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2475, s. 1986, and 518, s. 1990, alleging that the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and Fort Bonifacio parcels were within Taguig’s territory and that the proclamations altered Taguig’s boundaries without the plebiscite required by the Constitution. Makati denied the allegations, asserted jurisdiction over the disputed barangays, and filed answers and amended answers. The controversy centered on whether Parcels 3 and 4 of Survey Plan Psu-2031 (the former Fort William McKinley / Fort Bonifacio) were within Taguig or Makati.

Version of Taguig

Taguig traced its municipal existence through Spanish and American-era enactments and relied principally on Survey Plan Psu-2031, prepared in 1909 for Fort McKinley, which the Department of Lands approved and which divided the military reservation into Parcels 1 to 4. Taguig asserted that Psu-2031 located Parcels 3 and 4 within Taguig and that subsequent official maps, cadastral mappings, and government proclamations consistently treated Fort McKinley / Fort Bonifacio as situated in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, and Pasay, but not Makati. Taguig further relied on later DENR reconstitutions, BCDA patents, and cadastral approvals showing Parcel 4 within Taguig.

Version of Makati

Makati argued that Fort McKinley fell within the historical estate of Hacienda Maricaban and that the portion sold to the United States in 1902 included the areas that became Fort McKinley, which Makati contended were within San Pedro Macati (Makati). Makati presented a certified true copy of a Spanish-era registry entry, a Spanish contract of sale, and a U.S. National Archives map, and advanced sketch maps generated by its expert to show Fort McKinley and the EMBO and Inner Fort barangays as part of Makati. Makati also relied on census returns and COMELEC certifications showing political participation of the disputed barangays in Makati.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC of Pasig, Branch 153, conducted a full trial on the merits. On July 8, 2011 Judge Briccio C. Ygana rendered judgment in favor of Taguig, confirming that Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, formed part of Taguig’s territory, declaring Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 unconstitutional insofar as they altered Taguig’s boundaries without a plebiscite, and making permanent a preliminary injunction that enjoined Makati from exercising jurisdiction over Parcels 3 and 4.

Subsequent Proceedings and Parallel Remedies

Makati filed a Motion for Reconsideration ad cautelam and simultaneously instituted a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 before the Court of Appeals, prompting allegations of forum shopping. The RTC pairing judge denied Makati’s motion. The CA Seventh Division considered and eventually dismissed Makati’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment as premature and unnecessary in light of the pending CA appeal, while other CA divisions proceeded to hear the territorial appeal. The procedural posture thus spawned multiple rulings and motions across tribunals, culminating in a separate Supreme Court ruling on forum shopping in G.R. No. 208393.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The CA Special Former Sixth Division, in a Decision dated July 30, 2013, reversed the RTC and ruled in favor of Makati on the merits. The CA concluded that the RTC erroneously admitted and relied upon certain Taguig evidence, held that the disputed EMBO and Inner Fort barangays were within Makati, lifted the RTC injunction, and declared Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 constitutional and valid insofar as they confirmed Makati’s jurisdiction. The CA initially treated the forum-shopping issue as moot because of the Seventh Division’s earlier resolution, but the appellate decision nonetheless left the matter unresolved until this Court’s intervention.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court on Forum Shopping

In G.R. No. 208393 this Court found Makati guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping for pursuing simultaneously a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the CA and a Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC and later an appeal. The Court in that case modified the CA Resolut ions and fined Makati’s counsel for direct contempt but did not order dismissal of the territorial appeal; the dispositive portion imposed fines only. Following that ruling, Taguig moved in the CA to dismiss Makati’s territorial appeal on the ground of forum shopping. The CA Special Sixth Division relied on this Court’s finding and dismissed Makati’s appeal with prejudice in its March 8, 2017 Resolution, a dismissal later affirmed in its October 3, 2017 Resolution.

Supreme Court’s Consideration of Forum Shopping in the Present Petition

Makati petitioned from the CA Resolutions dismissing its appeal. This Court examined whether the CA erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the forum-shopping finding. The Court held that the CA overstepped the dispositive instruction of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 208393, because the dispositive part (fallo) of that decision only imposed fines and declared forum shopping but did not direct dismissal of the territorial appeal. The Court invoked the principle that where the fallo conflicts with statements in the body of a decision, the fallo controls, citing precedents such as Florentino v. Rivera and BBB v. People, and applied Rule 131, Section 3(o) to presume matters within an issue were passed upon sub silentio.

Application of the Doctrine on the Dispositive Part and Sub Silentio

The Court reiterated that the operative portion of a judgment must govern over inconsistent passages in the opinion. It explained that although the body of the forum-shopping decision discussed consequences that typically attend forum shopping, the fallo limited relief to fines. Consequently, the CA should not have effected a dismissal when this Court had not imposed that sanction. The Court observed that Taguig, if dissatisfied with the sanction the Supreme Court imposed, should have sought reconsideration of that ruling instead of invoking it to extinguish the territorial appeal.

Decision to Resolve the Dispute on the Merits and Judicial Economy

Notwithstanding the procedural irregularities, the Supreme Court exercised judicial economy and elected to resolve the underlying boundary dispute on the merits. The Court emphasized the protracted duration and public importance of the controversy, the need to provide finality, and precedents that permit relaxation of procedural rules where substantial justice and the public interest demand it. The Court noted exceptions to the limitation on factual inquiry in Rule 45 and invoked prior authorities where procedural technicalities were set aside in boundary disputes to avoid grave injustice.

Legal Framework on Creation and Alteration of Local Government Units

The Court expounded the constitutional and historical framework governing boundary changes. It traced the evolution from plenary legislative power in the Philippine Bill and early organic laws to the plebiscite requirement introduced by the 1973 Constitution and reiterated in Article X, Section 10, 1987 Constitution. The Court explained that boundary alterations effected before the 1973 Constitution need not comply with the plebiscite requirement, but thereafter any substantial alteration required statutory criteria and plebiscitary approval. The Court also observed that charters for Makati and Taguig deliberately omitted metes and bounds to allow judicial resolution of existing disputes.

Standard of Proof and the Critical Date

The Court stated that Taguig, as plaintiff, bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it had a superior claim to Parcels 3 and 4. The Court adopted the preponderance standard as the applicable evidentiary threshold. Employing an analogue from international territorial disputes, the Court fixed the critical date as January 31, 1990, the date of Proclamation No. 518, and accorded diminished probative weight to acts undertaken after that date unless they evidenced a normal continuation of prior acts rather than attempts to bolster legal position.

Evaluation of Evidence — Historical Maps and Cadastral Surveys

The Court examined the competing historical and cartographic evidence. It found Psu-2031 to be admissible and to carry greater probative weight than Makati’s privately prepared sketch maps. The Court observed that Psu-2031 had been used and reproduced by the Land Registration Authority and the DENR, and had served as the basis for numerous government proclamations and cadastral mappings of adjoining local government units. By contrast, Makati’s map was grounded principally on proprietary Spanish-era documents and a U.S. National Archives map that covered only the 1902 purchase, whereas official proclamations and later cadastral mappings indicated Fort McKinley encompassed the 1908 acquisition as well. The Court concluded that Psu-2031 and pre-critical-date cadastral maps favored Taguig’s claim.

Evaluation of Evidence — Contemporaneous Acts of Lawful Authorities

The Court reviewed statutes,

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235316)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Municipality of Makati (now City of Makati) filed the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated March 8, 2017 and October 3, 2017 in CA G.R. CV No. 98377.
Municipality of Taguig (now City of Taguig) was the plaintiff in the original complaint for judicial confirmation of territorial boundaries filed in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 153.
The case arose from a long‑running territorial dispute over the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and the Inner Fort in Fort Andres Bonifacio, formerly Fort William McKinley.
The RTC rendered a Decision dated July 8, 2011 in favor of Taguig confirming Parcels 3 and 4 of Psu‑2031 as part of Taguig and granting a permanent injunction.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated July 30, 2013 reversing the RTC and declaring the disputed areas within Makati, but separate CA resolutions later addressed procedural questions including forum shopping.
This Court denied the petition and reinstated the RTC Decision with modifications by the dispositive order of the present decision.

Key Factual Allegations

Taguig alleged that historic surveys and Psu‑2031 show Fort McKinley encompassed Parcels 1 to 4 and that Parcels 3 and 4, including the EMBOs and the Inner Fort, were within Taguig.
Makati alleged that the 1902 sale to the United States and subsequent maps placed Fort McKinley within San Pedro Macati and that the EMBOs and Inner Fort barangays have been administered as part of Makati since the mid‑twentieth century.
Taguig relied on cadastral maps approved before the critical date and on presidential proclamations and special patents that referenced Psu‑2031.
Makati relied on a 1979 municipal cadastral mapping later replaced by a numerical cadastral survey approved in 1994 and on census and COMELEC participation records showing municipal functions exercised in the disputed barangays.
The parties presented expert testimony and documentary evidence including the Cuaderno Suppletorio, a Spanish contract of sale, United States archival maps, various presidential proclamations, and DENR and LRA certified reproductions of Psu‑2031.

Procedural History

Taguig filed its complaint on November 22, 1993 in RTC Pasig for judicial confirmation of territorial limits and for declaration of unconstitutionality of certain proclamations.
The RTC issued the July 8, 2011 Decision in favor of Taguig and made the preliminary injunction permanent as to Parcels 3 and 4, Psu‑2031.
Makati filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and separate remedies, prompting parallel proceedings before different CA divisions and the RTC pairing judge.
The CA Special Former Sixth Division issued a Decision dated July 30, 2013 in the Territorial Dispute Case in favor of Makati on the merits.
This Court in City of Taguig v. City of Makati, G.R. No. 208393, found Makati guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping and fined its counsel but did not order dismissal of the CA appeal in its fallo dated June 15, 2016.
The CA Special Former Sixth Division thereafter dismissed Makati’s appeal on the ground of forum shopping in Resolutions dated March 8, 2017 and October 3, 2017, which Makati brought to this Court in the present petition.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed Makati’s appeal on the ground of forum shopping after this Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 208393.
Whether the assailed Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 altered territorial boundaries without complying with the plebiscite requirement of the Constitution.
Whether Taguig or Makati had the superior claim to Parcels 3 and 4 of Psu‑2031 under the preponderance of the evidence.
Whether this Court could disregard Rule 45 limitations and review factual findings because of the transcendental importance of a boundary dispute between local government units.

Contentions of the Parties