Montero, Cherith Inna D.
conveyed to the Bases Conversion and Development Authority
2009-24021
CITY OF TAGUIG V. CITY OF MAKATI
J. GONZALES-SISON, M. | CA-GR CV NO. 98377 | JULY 20, 2013
Legend:
 Main case
 Another case
Facts:
 This case involves a controversial territorial dispute between the
City of Taguig and the City of Makati over Fort Andres Bonifacio
 On 22 November 1993, the City of Taguig filed a complaint (writ of
prelim. Injunction) before the RTC of Pasig City to once and for all
judicially declare its territory and boundary limits. More
specifically, Taguig wants Fort Andres Bonifacio (729.15 ha) be
judicially declared as Taguig's exclusive own.
o Makati, who exercises JD over the disputed area, filed an
answer claiming ownership over the Fort.
 RTC: Granted the writ and denied the MR -> Makati filed certiorari
with the CA which lifted the injunction
 CA 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 “Inner Fort”
 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, 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
(BCDA) and the Fort Bonifacio Development Corp (FBDC), by virtue
of Special Patents No. 3595 and 3596, and declared to be in Taguig,
be enjoined and declared unconstitutional.
o (did not prosper)
 (Main Case) After both parties finished presenting evidence, July 8
2011 – RTC DECISION: In favor of 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 was DENIED
 The parties have differing versions of fact, but ultimately claimed
that the disputed area has been part of their territorial jurisdiction
since time immemorial.
ISSUE:
1. 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 because even Taguig’s own Brief admits
that San Pedro Macati adjoins Fort Mckinley
 TAGUIG ALSO EMPHASIZES THAT FORT BONIFACIO IS SITUATED IN
TAGUIG
 IT IS 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 o These patents were also issued during the course of the
1906; means it could not have included the land trial suggesting they were made IFO Taguig
previously sold to US Govt.
o SC: YES MAKATI IS CORRECT. OCT-291 covers only the land
2. W/N Proclamations 2475 and 518 are unconstitutional? NO
subsequently acquired, NOT Fort Mckinley
 Geodetic Engr. Almeda Jr. said that Fort Mckinley lies outside and
 The LC decision said the proclamations altered municipal
to the North of OCT 291.
boundaries and transferred areas from Taguig to Makati without
o Sketch plan was certified by DENR-NCR as to correctness
benefit of plebiscites, violating Sec. 10 of Art. X of the 1987
of the map
Constitution
o Coincides as well with 3rd reference map obtained by
 YET, census since 1970 of the 7 military barangays show they
Almeda from US National Archives
were under jurisdiction of Makati  Residents were even
 OCT 291’s derivative titles are: TCT 1219, 1688, 2288 and
registered in National and Local elections as Makati voters
61524(Registered under RP)
o Proclamations did not alter boundaries but merely
o None of these TCTs mention Parcel 4 (disputed area)
confirmed that said area is under jurisdiction of Makati
o The descriptions on the derivative titles coincide with the
 TAGUIG: barangays not legally created under RA 3590 “Revised
evidence presented by Makati and its claim that Fort
Barrio Charter”
William McKinley lies outside the tract of land claimed
o SC: NO. they were in existence prior to RA 3590;
by Taguig to be situated in Taguig, Pasay and Parañaque.
automatically came under provisions of RA 3590
 Even prior to complaint, Proclamations 2475 and 518 recognized
without need of having to be recreated
that the EMBOs(part of Parcel 4, PSU-2031) are within Makati’s
 Makati is also adjacent to the northern portion of Parcel 4
jurisdiction  such proclamations are impartial since they were
(disputed area); proximity-wise, more credible claim than Taguig’s
way before the disputes
 Proclamations also date as far back to Pres. Marcos and Aquino;
 The OCT SP-001 issued by Pres. Ramos w/c conveyed ownership of
only during the cityhood bills did Taguig contest it
Fort Bonifacio to Taguig and indicates Taguig as the location were
o “considerable delay in asserting one's right before a court
also highly irregular
of justice is strongly persuasive of the lack of merit of his
o Upon close examination, the location said Makati/Taguig
claim, since it is human nature for a person to enforce his
with Makati crossed out  BUT no name of person who
right when same is threatened or invaded xxx”
authorized the correction, date of such and notation of
“additional information after the date of approval” w/c CITY OF TAGUIG V. CITY OF MAKATI
should have been indicated in the box provided at the Leonen, J. | GR. No. 208393 | 15 June 2016
bottom right portion of the plans  PROCESS testified by Facts:
Engr. Almira of DENR-NCR, Chief of Geodetic Surveys
Division  On September 3, 2013, Taguig filed an MR assailing the CA’s July
o Means denial of due process of Makati 30, 2013 decision.
o In the meantime, the CA case (CA-Gr SP No. 120495)
reached the Supreme Court (SC).
  SC: On July 15, 2016 in the case of City of
Taguig v. City of Makati Gr No. 208393
 SC found Makati guilty of willful and
deliberate forum shopping for pursuing 2
simultaneous remedies:
1. a Petition for Annulment of Judgement
under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of
Court; and
2. a MR Ad Cautelam
 Hence, Taguig filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of Forum
Shopping.

Issue: Whether Makati committed willful and deliberate forum shopping?

YES

 SC found that Makati’s resort to 2 simultaneous reliefs was not

justified, disregarding even Makati’s similar claim herein that its
MR Ad Cautelam and Appeal were mere precautionary measures
 Makati’s simultaneous availment of the aforementioned reliefs
was not a by-product of mere thoughtless or negligence but of a
willful and deliberate act of Forum Shopping.
 The assailed Resolutions dated April 30, 2013 and July 25, 2013 of
the Court of Appeals Seventh Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 120495 are
MODIFIED. Respondent City of Makati is declared to have engaged
in forum shopping in simultaneously pursuing a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals and a Motion
for Reconsideration before Branch 153 of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City, and later, an Appeal before the Court of Appeals.