THE tug-of-war over parcels of land inside Fort Bonifacio is not yet over after the Supreme Court issued a ruling giving the municipality of Pateros a chance to prove its claim over the territory which the court recently declared with finality as part of the jurisdiction of Taguig City.
In a 28-page decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the Court’s First Division reversed and set aside the January 29, 2015 and December 24, 2015 resolution of the Court of Appeals which junked the claim of Pateros over the said parcel of lands.
Instead, the SC directed the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 271, Taguig City Station to reinstate the Civil Case No. 73387-TG filed by the Pateros municipal government against Taguig City and Makati City.
The Pateros municipal government’s complaint covers Parcel 4 of PSU-31 which includes seven barangays identified as Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo and Pitogo with an aggregate area of 3,044,568 square meters.
The said barangays have been declared as part of Makati’s territory by virtue of Proclamations No. 2475 and 518 issued on January 7, 1986 and January 31, 1991 by former Presidents Ferdinand Marcos and Corazon Aquino, respectively.
The Taguig City government filed a complaint on September 21, 1993 against Makati seeking territorial jurisdiction over the said lands.
In a ruling last month, the SC affirmed with finality its decision issued in 2021 which held that the disputed 729-hectare Bonifacio Global City complex and several other barangays in Makati are part of Taguig City.
The SC ruling covers Parcels 3 and 4 of PSU-31 comprising Fort Bonifacio, including the so-called Inner Fort comprising of Barangays Pembo, Comembo, Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo and Pitogo.
The Philippine Army headquarters, Navy installation, Marines’ headquarters, Consular area, Jusmag area, Heritage Park, Libingan ng mga Bayani, AFP Officers Village and the so-called six villages are situated in these areas.
In explaining its decision favoring Pateros, the SC said its final decision in G.R. No. 235316 (City of Makati vs. Taguig City) does not constitute res judicata that would prevent Pateros from pursuing its claim.
The doctrine of res judicata, according to the Court, provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the claim, demand or cause of action.
“That having been said, the finality of G.R. No. 235316 does not constitute res judicata in any of its three concepts as to foreclose Pateros’ right to pursue its claims,” the SC stressed.
For res judicata to apply in the case of Pateros, the SC said there should be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
Should identity of parties, subject matter of causes of action be shown in the two cases, the SC said the “bar by prior judgment” would apply.
However, the SC noted that in Pateros’ claim over Parcel 4 of Psu-2031, “there is neither identity of parties nor causes of action.”
“To recall, the Court in G.R. No 23516 determined that ‘Taguig presented evidence that is more convincing and worthier of belief than that proffered by Makati. The decision was based mainly on the Court’s appreciation of the evidence presented,” the SC pointed out in a ruling dated April 19, 2023, but was released to the public only yesterday.
“Pateros was not a party to the case, and in fact sought to intervene but was denied by the trial court. It has not yet had an opportunity to present its own evidence to prove its allegation of a historical claim to the disputed area,” the SC declared.
In its 2015 resolution junking Pateros’s plea to intervene in the territorial dispute case between Makati City and Taguig, the CA held there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Pasig RTC when it dismissed the complaint of Pateros for lack of jurisdiction.
The trial court concluded that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, due to the failure of Pateros to comply with Sections 118 and 119 of the Local Government Code.
Section 118 mandates that boundary disputes involving a component city or municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the other, shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective Sanggunians of the parties.
Section 19 provides that any party may elevate the decision of the Sanggunian concerned to the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the areas in dispute.
The Pateros LGU has invoked the 1885 Plano de Provincial de Manila, the 1901 Map of Luzon Island and the 1891 Plaano de Hacienda de Maricaban in claiming ownership over the said barangays.
It said it has been exercising jurisdiction over the disputed properties since 1801, when it was declared an independent town.
Its land area was reduced during the American regime when the latter built and exercised authority over the military reservation known as Fort William McKinley.
Even after the declaration of Philippine Independence in 1946, when Fort William McKinley was ceded to the Philippine government and renamed as Fort Bonifacio, it continued to exercise jurisdiction over the parcel of land, Paterod said.
Pateros municipal government also cited Proclamation No, 481 by former President Disodado Macapagal, which supposedly said a certain portion of the land embraced in said proclamation was part of Pateros.
Image credits: Michael Edwards | Dreamstime.com