Taguig v Makati Digest

Francis Kyle C. Subido

Prof. Gisella Dizon-Reyes

2015-89461

CITY OF TAGUIG V CITY OF MAKATI

Feb. 21, 2018

CA-GR CV NO. 98377

J. GONZALES-SISON, GONZALES-SISON, M.

JULY 20, 2013

Facts:  

 











Territorial dispute between Taguig and Makati over Fort Andres Bonifacio (MAIN CASE) Nov. 22 1993 – 1993  – Taguig filed complaint w/ prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against Makati w/ RTC to judicially judicially declare its territory and boundary limits specifically, it wants Fort Bonifacio (729 ha) ha) o Opposed in an answer by Makati who exercises jurisdiction over the area and claims rightful ownership o Impleaded in the case are: Secretary Teofisto P. Guingona, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Secretary Angel Alcala, in his capacity as Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, and Director Abelardo Palad, Jr., in his capacity capacity as Director of Lands Management Management Bureau RTC: Granted the writ and and denied denied the MR Makati filed certiorari w/ the CA w/c lifted the injunction injunction CA Modified Modified on MR: lifted the injunction only for areas covered by Makati’s 7 Enlisted Men’s barrios (Cembo, South Cembo, Comembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, Pembo, and Pitogo) o Sustained for the “Inner Fort” (Where the military camp was located) Taguig built a police outpost in Brgy. Southside within “Inner Fort” exercising jurisdiction over it w/c was questioned by Makati at Courts to no avail MEANWHILE MEANWHILE Makati filed petition for prohibition and mandamus w/ RTC for payments made to Taguig of real estate taxes and other taxes on lands located in Fort Bonifacio or the Barangay Post Proper Northside and Barangay Post Proper Southside, which have been conveyed to the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC), by virtue of Special Patents No. 3595 and 3596, and 3596,  and declared to be in Taguig, be enjoined and declared unconstitutional. o STILL NOTHING; OCT ISSUED TO FBDC (BACK TO MAIN CASE) After both parties finished presenting evidence: Taguig – Taguig  – Aug  Aug 19 2009, Makati – Makati – March 19 2011 o order for respective r espective memoranda was issued  Taguig able to file but Makati asked for extension o July 1 2011 – 2011 – Judge  Judge Ygana said he wanted to grant Makati’s extension but he was set to retire on July 9 and this was the last remaining case July 8 2011 – 2011 – RTC  RTC DECISION: IFO TAGUIG; Injunction made permanent o PROCLAMATION 2475 AND 518 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID FOR ALTERING BOUNDARIES AND DIMINISHING AREAS OR TERRITORY OF TAGUIG W/O PLEBISICE AS REQUIRED IN SEC. 10, ART X, 1987 CONSTITUTION o MR with now Judge Suarez was DENIED Hence, ad cautelam Notice of Appeal  Taguig filed MTD on grounds of forum shopping

TAGUIG VERSION OF FACTS 











 



It has been a pueblo since Spanish times, became a municipality thru General Order 40 (Mar 29 1990) and  Act 137 (June 11 1901), until 1974 then became a City. Covers 4.5K ha, bounded on NW by Makati, N by Pasig River, Pateros and Pasig, E by Taytay, Rio del Pueblo and Laguna Bay and S by Muntinlupa. W by Paranaque and PNR Oct 3 1902 – US Govt. established military camp called Fort Mckinley (Now Fort Bonifacio) on alleged Taguig land o Later expanded by taking Hacienda Maricaban (Taguig, Paranaque and Pasay) in 1906  this land was already registered under Torrens System (OCT)  TCT given to US Govt. Land was surveyed by a Ramon Pertierra, Plan denominated as PSU-2031: dividing the land into 4 parcels o 1= Pasay, 2 = Paranaque, 3/4 = Taguig  Fort Mckinley alleged to be in Parcel 4 o Survey plan indicated the boundaries in dark lines. It reflected that Parcel 4 was bounded by the San Jose Creek, separating it from the Guadalupe Estate and a portion of the San Pedro Macati Estate(WIKIPEDIA: OLD NAME FOR MAKATI) . Allegedly, this shows that Parcel 4 is inside Taguig and Pasig. While Parcels 2 and 3 have the Dilain Creek joining Ventura Creek (now Maricaban Creek) as a common boundary in the North with the San Pedro Macati Estate o SURVEY PLAN BECAME REFERENCE FOR SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS OF ADJOINING MUNICIPALITIES Tydings-Mcduffie Act ceded US Military camps to PH Govt.  Proclamation 423 renamed Fort Mckinley to Bonifacio situated in the municipalities of Taguig, Pasay, Pasig, and Paranaque o Proclamation 423: Parcel 1 and 2 = Villamor Airbase and Manila Intl. Airport Fort Bonifacio was also part of Brgy. Urusan in Taguig until the creation of Brgy. Western Bicutan when it fell under the latter’s jurisdiction Sep 15 2008 – Sangguniang Panglungsod of Taguig enacted Ordinances 67, 68 and 78: Barangay Western Bicutan was divided into three barangays (Barangay Pinagsama, Barangay Fort Bonifacio, and Barangay Western Bicutan). COMELEC held a plebiscite throughout the former Barangay Western Bicutan, which ratified the creation of Brgy. Fort Bonifacio and Pinagsama Proclamation 2457 by President Marcos on Jan 7 1986 declared Fort Bonifacio as Makati territory Jan 31 1990 – Pres. Aquino issued Proclamation 518 stated that the tracts of land subject thereof are situated in Makati although they are admittedly parts of Fort Bonifacio o Makati exercised jurisdiction over the areas where the so- called Military Barangays of Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo and Pitogo are situated CLAIMS: Makati included 74ha more than the brgys. Stated above + started to build structures in Parcel 4 (Inner Fort) w/o Presidential Issuance or Proclamation

MAKATI VERSION OF FACTS 

 

 

Hacienda Maricaban fell under jurisdiction of several towns, including San Pedro Macati (324ha in the northeast portion of the Hacienda) o Casal, owner of Hacienda, sold northeast portion to US Govt. w/c matched the map of Fort Mckinley Military Reservation (324ha area included here) 1918 and 1948 Census by US Govt listed Fort Mckinley as Makati territory Families of AFP established Enlisted Men’s Barrios(EMBO); same year the Inner Fort Barangays were established o Since 1975, Inner Fort Barangays participate in political and national exercises of Makati Census by NCSO also lists the EMBOs and Inner Fort brgys. As under Makati. 1979 – Cadastral mapping said the area was under Makati



  

Under Proclamations 2475 and 518 by Marcos and Aquino, the areas were still said to be under Makati This case was filed while Makati’s cityhood bill was being deliberated in Congress MCAD-571-D w/c superseded the 1979 cadastral survey still held Fort Bonifacio as Makati territory Even before the boundary dispute, Makati exercised jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio as depicted by the delivery of basic services and other financial and social benefits or assistance to its EMBO barangays and Inner Fort barangays

W/N Makati was guilty of Forum Shopping? NO  

Resolved in a Resolution dated Apr 30 2013. Issue rendered moot Judge Suarez also recognized Makati’s right to appeal o There was still an available remedy to Makati and it correctly and timely filed the present Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam. If applicable, there is still another remedy available to either party, appeal to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

(LONG DISCUSSION ON EVIDENCE ISSUE) W/N LC erred in considering Taguig’s evide nce as admissible?  YES 











lower court merely replicated the arguments raised in Taguig's memorandum into its assailed decision, and as a result, it utilized evidence that were not properly identified, authenticated, and cross-examined in order to have probative value in coming up with a judicial decision, the same must be based on the facts surrounding the case, and the laws and arguments adduced by the party-litigants which may all be s een from the records of the case. Even this Court, from time to time, have directly lifted from the records of the case, quite axiomatically o HOWEVER, this is provided that what were copied were correct statements of the facts and the law on which they are based. Precisely, Makati in its Reply Brief ad cautelam states that “ it is not just the copying but the injudicious copying of Taguig's Memorandum that is the point.” Evidence must have been reviewed and evaluated in order to know who or which has greater weight of evidence or preponderance of evidence as required in civil cases such as the case at bar . It is not a mere incorporation of statements o Taguig was not able to prove this greater weight of evidence to merit a favorable decision. LC passed off as evidence those documents that were neither presented, authenticated, or worse, withdrawn during the course of the trial violating the rules on evidence and due process o Best Evidence Rule under R130, S2/3 of Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.  Must be original documents o IN THIS CASE: the evidence adduced are mostly, if not all, documentary evidence, they must be testified on, duly authenticated by a competent witness, and rightfully cross-examined so that the document could have probative value. Questionable pieces of evidence: original of Plan Psu-2031, the map that proves that the disputed area was within the jurisdiction of Taguig, which was, however, never identified nor authenticated before the lower court; the original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1219 where OCT No. 291 was based and evidence purporting to the fact that Fort William McKinley was part of Barangay Western Bicutan was likewise not presented for identification and authentication. o Director Almazan was never presented to affirm the contents of his letters to Congress and be subjected to cross examination on his Judicial Affidavit Same with Esmeraldo Ramos o Letter of Director Palad, was not properly identified by its author. TAGUIG CLAIM: Makati waived its right to object, allowed Taguig to submit such evidence after agreement



 

NO. Makati understood that Taguig will present as witnesses, Mr. Ramos and Director Almazan to testify on the matters contained in the affidavits and the attachments. o In Taguig’s brief: they stated such which is what Makati relied on Rule on Judicial Affidavits though affidavits take the place of direct testimonies it does not mean that the said affidavits will not be authenticated and cross-examined. LC seriously erred in admitting said pieces of evidence, and worse, gave probative value to them despite miserably failing the tests set under the rules of evidence and jurisprudence.

(RELEVANT TO TOPIC)W/N LC erred in declaring disputed area as Taguig’s? YES    









 Assuming PSU-2031 (The Plan) was correct, Fort Mckinley is only the northeast portion of the Hacienda Maricaban TAGUIG CLAIM: Hacienda does not adjoin Makati o SC: misleading coz even Taguig’s own Brief admits that San Pedro Macati adjoins Fort Mckinley TAGUIG ALSO EMPHASIZES THAT FORT BONIFACIO IS SITUATED IN TAGUIG UNDISPUTED THAT CASAL SOLD TO THE US GOVT THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE HACIENDA IN AUG. 1902 o TAGUIG: the Fort expanded into the rest of the Hacienda, the resulting tract of land was registered and covered by OCT-291 w/c was under Taguig o MAKATI: OCT-291 was registered under Casal’s name in 1906; means it could not have included the land previously sold to US Govt. o SC: YES MAKATI IS CORRECT. OCT-291 covers only the land subsequently acquired, NOT Fort Mckinley Geodetic Engr. Almeda Jr. said that Fort Mckinley lies outside and to the North of OCT 291. o Sketch plan was certified by DENR-NCR as to correctness of the map o Coincides as well with 3 rd reference map obtained by Almeda from US National Archives OCT 291’s derivative titles are: TCT 1219, 1688, 2288 and 61524(Registered under RP) o None of these TCTs mention Parcel 4 (disputed area) o The descriptions on the derivative titles coincide with the evidence presented by Makati and its claim that Fort William McKinley lies outside the tract of land claimed by Taguig to be situated in Taguig, Pasay and Parañaque. Even prior to complaint, Proclamations 2475 and 518 recognized that the EMBOs(part of Parcel 4, PSU-2031) are within Makati’s jurisdiction such proclamations are impartial since they were way before the disputes The OCT SP-001 issued by Pres. Ramos w/c conveyed ownership of Fort Bonifacio to Taguig and indicates Taguig as the location were also highly irregular o Upon close examination, the location said Makati/Taguig with Makati crossed out BUT no name of person who authorized the correction, date of such and notation of “additional information after the date of approval” w/c should have been indicated in the box provided at the bottom right portion of the plans  PROCESS testified by Engr. Almira of DENR-NCR, Chief of Geodetic Surveys Division o Means denial of due process of Makati o These patents were also issued during the course of the trial suggesting they were made IFO Taguig

W/N Proclamations 2475 and 518 are unconstitutional? NO 

The LC decision said the proclamations altered municipal boundaries and transferred areas from Taguig to Makati without benefit of plebiscites, violating Sec. 10 of Art. X of the 1987 Constitution





 

YET, census since 1970 of the 7 military barangays show they were under jurisdiction of Makati  Residents were even registered in National and Local elections as Makati voters o Proclamations did not alter boundaries but merely confirmed that said area is under  jurisdiction of Makati TAGUIG: barangays not legally created under RA 3590 “Revised Barrio Charter” o SC: NO. they were in existence prior to RA 3590; automatically came under provisions of RA 3590 w/o need of having to be recreated Makati is also adjacent to the northern portion of Parcel 4(disputed area); proximity-wise, more credible claim than Taguig’s Proclamations also date as far back to Pres. Marcos and Aquino; only during the cityhood bills did Taguig contest it o “considerable delay in asserting one's right before a court of justice is strongly persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim, since it is human nature for a person to enforce his right when same is threatened or invaded xxx” 

RTC DECISION REVERSED. APPEAL BY TAGUIG DISMISSED (SO MAKATI WON) NOTES: 



Overview of the entire case proceeding: 2013 CA case awarded BGC to Makati. Taguig was later the one awarded BGC because they moved to dismiss the main case after the 2016 SC decision that found Makati forum shopping after simultaneously appealing the Pasig RTC ruling and filing a petition before the CA, both seeking the same relief. That was granted in the October 2017 CA case. (which is why its under Taguig atm) Justice Gonzales-Sison who awarded BGC to Makati was also discovered to have close ties to the Binays