Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
De Vera
2009-31970
MUNICIPALITY OFTAGUIG (now CITY OF TAGUIG) v. This was bounded by San Jose Creek, separating it from the
MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI (now CITY OF MAKATI) Guadalupe Estate and a portion of the San Pedro Macati
July 30, 2013 | Gonzales-Sison, M., J. | Boundary Dispute Estate.
Allegedly, this shows that Parcel 4 is inside Taguig and
Pasig. While Parcels 2 and 3 have the Dilain Creek joining
FACTS: Ventura Creek (now Maricaban Creek) as a common
boundary in the North with the San Pedro Macati Estate.
Version of Taguig
Taguig claims that said survey plan became the reference for subsequent
Taguig is a political subdivisions existing for 426 since the Spanish surveys for adjoining municipalities.
occupation. It was initially a pueblo of the Province of Manila. As per Pursuant to the Tydings-McDuffie Act enacted by the Congress of the
General Order No.40 dated March 29, 1900, it became a municipality of United States of America, establishing the Philippines' independence
the Province of Rizal. from the United States, the U.S. Government ceded its former military
As per Act No.137 dated June 11, 1901 during the American occupation, camps, including Fort William McKinley, to the Republic of the
it was a municipality until 1974. It then became a city in Metropolitan Philippines. Thus, TCT No. 2288 became TCT No. 61524 in the name of
Manila. the Republic.
It allegedly covers a total area of 4,520.6913 hectares, more or less, In 1957, President Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423 renaming Fort
bounded on the Northwest by Makati, on the North by the Pasig River, William McKinley as Fort Andres Bonifacio, which is situated in the
the Pateros along the Manunuyo Creek, and Pasig, on the East by Taytay municipalities of Taguig, Pasig, Parañaque and Pasay.
along Rio del Pueblo and Laguna de Bay, on the South by Muntinlupa, o Proclamation No.423 excluded Parcels 1 and 2 from Port
and on the West by Parañaque and the P.N.R. Property. Bonifacio to become the Villamor Airbase and the Civil
In 1902, the Government of the United States established a military camp Aeronautics Complex (Manila International Airport)
called Fort William McKinley on a vast tract of land allegedly within o By virtue of this proclamation, Taguig now claims that Fort
Taguig. This was expanded in 1906 to include Hacienda Maricaban Bonifacio is situated in Taguig.
located in Taguig, Pasaya and Parañaque. Up to the creation of Barangay Western Bicutan in 1964, Fort Bonifacio
o This bigger tract of land was registered under the Torrens was part of Barrio Ususan in Taguig. Up to 2008, it fell under the
System as OCT No.291 jurisdiction of Barangay Western Bicutan.
o The OCT was cancelled and TCT No.1219 was issued in favor In 2008, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Taguig City enacted
of the US Government Ordinances 67,68 and 78, Barangay Western Bicutan (Barangay
o TCT No.1219 was again cancelled and TCT No.2288 was issued Pinagsama, Fort Bonifacio and Western Bicutan). A plebiscite was held
Taguig had the land surveyed and was divided among 4 parcels of land and the creation of Barangay Fort Bonifacio and Barangay Pinagsama
o Parcel 1 – Pasay was ratified.
o Parcel 2 – Parañaque However, then came Proclamation No. 2475 issued by President Marcos
o Parcel 3 and 4 – Taguig in 1986 , disregarding in effect the claim of Taguig over Fort Bonifacio
Parcel 4 – For William McKinley by stating that the same falls under the jurisdiction of Makati City.
Clarissa M. De Vera
2009-31970
In 1990, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 518, In 1950, after the Philippines gained independence from the United
modifying Proclamation No. 2475 wherein it is stated that the tracts of States of America, Fort William McKinley was turned over to the
land subject thereof are situated in Makati although they are admittedly Philippine Government and renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio Military
parts of Fort Bonifacio. Reservation under the direct authority of the Armed Forces of the
o Thus, Makati exercised jurisdiction over the areas where the so Philippines.
called Military Barangays of Cembo, South Cembo, West In the 1960's the families of the AFP's enlisted men were allowed to
Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo and Pitogo are situated. occupy areas within the military camp, where they eventually established
Taguig claims that Makati's officials at the time, in defiance of the the Enlisted Men's Barrios or EMBO's. At the same year, the Inner Fort
jurisdiction of Taguig and in violation of the law, caused the inclusion of barangays (Barangay Post Propert Northside and Barangay Post Proper
about seventy four (74) hectares more than what was actually resided Southside) were also established.
upon in the aforesaid barangays as of 1985 and the declaration of said Since 1975, the Inner Fort barangays have been participating in the
farmlands as open for disposition. national and local political exercises as barangays of Makati.
Likewise, Makati started to build structures on open spaces in Parcel 4 In 1986, President Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation 2475
(Inner Fort) without any Proclamation or Presidential issuance to back up excluding a portion of Fort Bonifacio from the military reservation – the
its move. EMBO barangays – situated in Makati and declaring it open to
Taguig claims that Makati exercising jurisdiction over parcels of land disposition to entitled residents therein.
that are part of the Inner Fort, compelled it to file the case for territorial In 1990, President Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation No. 518,
boundaries. changing the manner of disposition of the areas excluded from Fort
Bonifacio Military Reservation under the earlier Presidential
Version of Makati Proclamation No. 2475. Again, the EMBO barangays was stated as
Makati claims that Fort William McKinley was once part of a large within Makati, and embraced within Fort William McKinley.
estate called Hacienda Maricaban owned by Dolores Pascual Casal. The Proceedings in Court
hacienda was so large that it fell under the jurisdictions of several towns,
including San Pedro Macati. Based on a plotting made, the town of San On November 22, 1993, the City of Taguig filed a complaint with the
Pedro Macati exercised jurisdiction over an area of 324 hectares in the RTC of Pasig City to once and for all judicially declare its territory and
northeast portion of the hacienda. boundary limits. More specifically, for Fort Bonifacio to be judicially
In 1902, Dolores Pascual Casal sold the northeastern portion of the declared within the territory of Taguig.
hacienda to the U.S. Government. The 324 hectare area under the o It includes a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
jurisdiction of San Pedro Macati was entirely within the portion sold. injunction to enjoin the City of Makati from exercising
In the 1918 and 1948 Census conducted by the U.S. Government in the jurisdiction over the area.
Philippines, Fort William McKinley was specifically listed and included The City of Makati filed its Answer claiming rightful ownership within
as one of the barrios of Makati. the disputed area .
Clarissa M. De Vera
2009-31970
The lower court issued the writ of injunction to enjoin Makati. Makati o Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation consisting of Parcels 3 and
filed an MR but was denied. Thus, it elevated the case to the Court of 4, Psu-2031, is confirmed as part of the territory of the plaintiff
Appeals. City of Taguig
The CA lifted the injunction but upon motion of Taguig, it modified its o Proclamation No. 2475, Series of 1986 and Proclamation No.
decision to lift the injunction only insofar as the areas covered by 518, Series of 1990 are hereby declared
Makati’s 7 Enlisted Men’s barrio barangay (Cembo, South Cembo, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and INVALID, insofar as they altered
Comembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, Pembo and Pitogo). The boundaries and diminished the areas or territorial jurisdiction of
injunction as to the inner fort was sustained. the City of Taguig without the benefit of a plebiscite as required
Taguig then exercised its jurisdiction over the Inner Fort by building a in Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
police outpost in the Barangay Southside, within the Inner Fort. This, o Writ of Injunction is made PERMANENT
Makati questioned before the courts but to no avail. Makati filed an MR. It also filed a petition for annulment of judgment
Makati filed another petition for prohibition and mandamus before the before the Court of Appeals on the ground that the judgment was
Regional Trial Court of Makati and asked that the payments to Taguig of rendered after the retirement of Judge Ygaña. The lower court's pairing
real estate taxes and other taxes and fees on lands located in Fort judge, Judge Leila Cruz-Suarez, heard the motion.
Bonifacio or the Barangay Post Proper Northside and Barangay Post Makati asked Judge Suarez to inhibit from the case. Judge Suarez,
Proper Southside, which have been conveyed to the Bases Conversion however denied the motion of Makati on the grounds that:
and Development Authority (BCDA) and the Fort Bonifacio o There is nothing improper and illegal for Judge Ygana to
Development Corporation (FBDC), by virtue of Special Patents No. adopt the narratives and arguments in the memorandum of
3595 and 3596, and declared to be situated in Taguig, be enjoined and Taguig since memorandum and briefs precisely aid the
that the special patents be declared unconstitutional. But this did not courts in writing decisions;
prosper. o Judge Ygana had been at the helm of this case since its pre-
In 1995, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. SP-001 covering the trial stage until its conclusion thereby affording him the
tracts of land mentioned in Special Patent No. 3596 was issued to FBDC. advantage of familiarity with the story of the case;
Trial ensued and both parties presented evidence. After their formal offer o The decision stated sufficient findings of fact and the law on
of evidence, the lower court required them to submit a Memorandum. which it was based, and when Judge Ygana considered all
Makati filed a motion to be given extension. the evidence presented by both parties concluded that the
In an open session, Judge Ericcio C. Ygaña, informed the counsels for greater weight of evidence was in favor of Taguig; and
both parties that much to his desire to grant the motion of Makati, he o That Makati was guilty of forum-shopping
cannot do so because he will be retiring on July 9, 2011, and in fact, this Makati filed its Notice of Appeal ad cautelam while Taguig filed a
is the only case remaining in his sala since the court was able to dispose motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping. Makati now goes to
all the criminal, civil and special proceedings cases before it. the Court of Appeals
The lower court issued a decision in favor of Taguig. It declared that: The CA /found merit in the instant appeal and recognized the right of
Makati to appeal.
Clarissa M. De Vera
2009-31970
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court GRANTS the or worse, withdrawn during the course of the trial violating the rules on
instant appeal, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the assailed decision and evidence and due process
order rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 153 dated The questionable pieces of evidence by Taguig which were cited by the
08 July 2011 and 19 December 2011 respectively and RENDERS a new lower court in coming up with its assailed decision include the original of
Decision: Plan Psu-2031, the map that proves that the disputed area was within the
jurisdiction of Taguig, which was, however, never identified nor
1. Dismissing the Complaint of Taguig for lack of merit and confirming authenticated before the lower court;
that the Disputed Area comprising of the EMBO Barangays and
The original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 121911 where OCT No.
Inner Fort Barangays (Barangay Post Proper Northside and Barangay
291 was based and evidence purporting to the fact that Fort William
Post Proper Southside) in Fort Bonifacio are within the territorial
McKinley was part of Barangay Western Bicutan was likewise not
jurisdiction of Makati City;
presented for identification and authentication.
2. Lifting the injunction issued by the lower court against Makati
Moreover, Director Almazan was never presented to affirm the contents
3. Declaring Presidential Proclamation No.2475 and Proclamation
of his letters to Congress and be subjected to cross-examination on his
No.518 as CONSTITUTIONAL and VALID
Judicial Affidavit This can also be extended to the Judicial Affidavit of
4. Ordering Taguig to immediately cease and desist from exercising
Esmeraldo Ramos.
jurisdiction within the disputed area and return the same to Makati.
As to the letter of Director Palad, the same was not properly identified by
The lower court erred in accepting as admissible Taguig’s evidence its author.
On this score, it is well-entrenched that the declarants of written
The lower court merely replicated the arguments raised in Taguig's statements pertaining to disputed facts must be presented at the trial for
memorandum into its assailed decision, and as a result, it utilized cross-examination, otherwise, they would be considered as hearsay.
evidence that were not properly identified, authenticated, and cross- Even public documents need to be identified by the government official
examined in order to have probative value. or authority who prepared them because they are not conclusive evidence
While a decision may be lifted directly from the records of the case, it is with respect to the truthfulness of the statements made therein by the
provided that what were copied were correct statements of the facts and interested parties.
the law on which they are based. Taguig asserts that Makati waived its right to object, that upon agreement
In the acceptance of party-litigants' evidence, the same must have been of the parties, Taguig was allowed to submit as evidence the Judicial
reviewed and evaluated in order to know who or which has greater Affidavits and its attachments. However, Makati denies this because for
weight of evidence or preponderance of evidence as required in civil its part, Makati understood that Taguig will present as witnesses, Mr.
cases such as the case at bar. It is not a mere incorporation of statements. Ramos and Director Almazan to testify on the matters contained in the
Contrary to the findings of the lower court as between pieces of evidence affidavits and the attachments.
presented, Taguig was not able to prove this greater weight of evidence We can apply by analogy the new rule on Judicial Affidavits which states
to merit a favorable decision that though affidavits take the place of direct testimonies it does not
Accordingly, Makati was correct to point that the lower court passed off mean that the said affidavits will not be authenticated and cross-
as evidence those documents that were neither presented, authenticated, examined.
Clarissa M. De Vera
2009-31970
By and large, the lower court seriously erred in admitting said pieces of Verily, OCT No. 291 being issued in the name of Dolores Pascual Casal
evidence, and worse, gave probative value to them despite miserably in 1906, could not have included the land formerly sold to the U.S.
failing the tests set under the rules of evidence and jurisprudence. Government, which is said to be Fort William McKinley.
Rather, the CA is convinced that OCT No. 291 only covers the tract of
The lower court erred in declaring the disputed area as part of the land that was subsequently acquired by the U.S. Government, falling
territory of Taguig under the jurisdiction of Taguig, Pasay and Parañaque.
Even granting that Plan Psu-2031 is a correct mapping of the Hacienda Furthermore, Decreto No. 1368, offered in evidence by Makati, and OCT
Maricaban, it comprises of the cities of Taguig, Pasay, Parañaque, Pasig. No. 291, through its technical descriptions was plotted by Geodetic Engr.
Fort William McKinley lies at the northern portion of the Hacienda. Francisco Almeda, Jr. which shows that Fort William McKinley lies
Taguig stresses that the Hacienda Maricaban does not adjoin Makati. outside and to the North of the property registered to Dolores Pascual
This is rather a misleading statement because looking at the map, and Casal under OCT No. 291.23
based on the deduced facts above, San Pedro Macati adjoins the disputed It bears to point that this sketch plan was certified by the DENR-NCR as
area. to the correctness of the plotting of the map.24 Furthermore, this sketch
Based on Taguig’s brief, lying at the Northern and Northwestern side of plan, coincides with the 3rd reference map obtained by Engr. Almeda, Jr.
the Fort McKinley is Pasay (formerly Malibay) as the Guadalupe from the U.S. National Archives pertaining to the area of the proposed
extension of Fort William McKinley.
Estate and the San Pedro de Macati Estate appear as located within
the territory of Pasay. Thus, Taguig readily admits that San Pedro Derivative titles of OCT No. 291 are TCT No. 1219, TCT No. 1688,
Macati lies within what was formerly Pasay or formerly Malibay, and TCT No. 2288 and TCT No. 61524 (registered under the name of the
thus adjoins Fort William McKinley. Certainly, Taguig did not intend to Republic of the Philippines). However, as even admitted by the lower
highlight this proximity of Fort William McKinley to Makati. Instead, court, these TCTs do not mention Parcel 4, which covers the disputed
Taguig fervently emphasises that Fort Bonifacio is mainly situated in area.
Taguig. Nowhere in said derivative titles and decree was the disputed area,
Evidence adduced by both parties relating to the sale of land by Dolores Parcel 4, Psu-2031, mentioned. The descriptions above on the
Pascual Casal to the U.S. Government on August 5, 1902 is undisputed. derivative titles coincide with the evidence presented by Makati and its
It is likewise uncontroverted that the land sold became Fort William claim that Fort William McKinley lies outside the tract of land claimed
McKinley or Fort Bonifacio. by Taguig to be situated in Taguig, Pasay and Parañaque.
Taguig claims that in 1906, the Fort was expanded to cover the rest of Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 recognized that the EMBO
the Hacienda Maricaban. Taguig posits that, that bigger tract of land Barangays (portion of Parcel 4, Psu-2031), are in fact within Makati's
became registered under the Torrens system of titling and was jurisdiction.
consequently covered by OCT No. 291. As for OCT SP-00127 issued on February 10, 1995 by the President
However, OCT No. 291 was registered under the name of Dolores Fidel V. Ramos through Special Patents 3595 and 3596, conveying
Pascual Casal and was issued on October 1, 1906 pursuant to Decree No. ownership over a considerable portion of Fort Bonifacio to FBDC, which
1368 of the Court of Land Registration. indicates Taguig as the location of Fort Bonifacio, the trace-back for its
sources were plans Swo-00-00126528 and Swo-00- 001266.
Clarissa M. De Vera
2009-31970
Upon closer examination, one can see that the location of Fort Bonifacio came under the provisions of RA No. 3590 without need of having to be
in said plans was indicated as Makati/Taguig, but the word “Makati” was recreated under that law
crossed out. This crossing-out is highly irregular. Furthermore, as stated above, there is a great deal of close proximity with
As testified on by Engineer Ignacio Almira, Jr., Chief of Geodetic the San Pedro Macati and the northern portion of Hacienda Maricaban,
Surveys Division of the DENR-NCR,30 the basis of the correction, the Parcel 4, Psu-2031. In fact, Parcel 4 is adjacent to Makati and Pasig.
name of the person who authorized the correction, the date of the Hence, proximity-wise, Makati's claim is more credible than that of
correction and a notation of “additional information after the date of Taguig's.
approval” should have been indicated in the box provided at the bottom Proclamation 2475 was enacted by then President Ferdinand Marcos in
right portion of the plan. 1986 while Proclamation 518 was created by then President Corazon
However, those indicators were absent in both plans Swo-00- 001265 Aquino in 1990, however, it took Taguig until 1993, when the proposed
and Swo-00-001266, hence OCT SP-001 cannot be relied upon by cityhood of Makati was being debated in Congress, to file the instant
Taguig to buttress its claim over the disputed party. If ever, it even Complaint. On this note the Supreme Court has held that “considerable
fortifies the claim of Makati since the source plans originally states the delay in asserting one's right before a court of justice is strongly
name of Makati until was unjustifiably and unceremoniously crossed-out persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim, since it is human nature for a
in violation of the established rules and of Makati's right to due process. person to enforce his right when same is threatened or invaded xxx”.