 Taguig had this tract of land surveyed by a certain Ramon Pertierra, who came up
CITY OF TAGUIG V. CITY OF MAKATI with the plan denominated as Psu-2031. Basically, the tract of land was
CA-G.R. CV NO. 98377 (6th Division)
30 July 2013, Gonzales-Sison, J.
Digested by: Tongco, Nadaine | 2008-05089
FACTS
 1993: City of Taguig filed a complaint in RTC Pasig to declare its territory and
boundary limits, which specifically would include Fort Bonifacio consisting of
729.15 hectares. City of Makati, which exercises jurisdiction over disputed area
claims rightful ownership.
 Likewise impleaded by Taguig in its complaint are: Sec. Teofisto P. Guingona, in
his capacity as Executive Secretary, Sec. Angel Alcala, in his capacity as SENR,
and Dir. Abelardo Palad, Jr., in his capacity as Director of LMB.
 Taguig’s complaint included a prayer for Writ of PI enjoining Makati from
exercising jurisdiction. RTC granted but CA modified, lifting the PI over the 7
EMBOs1 (Enlisted Men Barrios).
 Makati filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus before RTC Makati. It
asked that RPT and other taxes on lands located in Fort Bonifacio or the
Barangay Post Proper Northside and Southside
o These were conveyed to BCDA and FBDC by virtue of Special Patents
3595 and 3596 and declared the barangays to be in Taguig.
o Makati sought that these special patents be declared unconstitutional.
 2011: RTC:
(1) Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031,
is confirmed as part of the territory of City of Taguig
(2) Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 are unconstitutional and invalid insofar as
they altered boundaries and diminished the areas or territorial jurisdiction of the
City of Taguig without the benefit of a plebiscite, as required under Sec. 10, Art.
X of the 1987 Constiution.
(3) Making the Writ of PI permanent. Enjoining Makati from exercising
jurisdiction over Parcels 3 and 4.
 2012: Taguig filed MTD of the appeal on the ground of forum-shopping
Version of Taguig
 Taguig claims that it has been in existence as a political subdivision since April
25, 1587 or for 426 years, initially as a pueblo.
1
Cembo, South Cembo, Comembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, Pembo and Pitogo
divided/denominated in four parcels, namely: Parcel 1 becoming Pasay, Parcel 2
as Parañaque, Parcels 3 and 4 as Taguig (with Parcel 4 as the area that is
allegedly mainly situated in Taguig, Fort William McKinley)
 Taguig claims that said survey plan became the reference for subsequent surveys
for adjoining municipalities. (i.e. Pasay Cadastre, Makati Cadastre, Taguig
Cadasre, etc.)
 1957: Pres. Garcia issued Proc. No. 423, renaming Fort McKinley as Fort
Bonifactio, which is situated in the municipalities of Taguig, Pasig, Paranaque
and Pasay. Such Proclamation excluded Parcels 1 and 2 from Fort Bonifacio.
 Before 1964, Fort Bonifacio was part of Brgy. Ususan in Taguig. From 1964 to
2008, it fell under the jurisdiction of Brgy. Wester Bicutan.
 1986: Pres. Marcos issued Proc. No. 2475 2 declared that Fort Bonifacio falls
under the jurisdiction of then Municipality of Makati.
 1990: Pres. Aquino issued Proc. No. 518 3 modifying 2475 which provide for
specific tracts of land are situated in Makati.
Version of Makati
 Fort William McKinley was once part of a large estate called Hacienda
Maricaban owned by Dolores Pascual Casal. The northeaster portion was
subsequently sold by Casal to the US Government.
 In the 1918 and 1948 Census conducted by the U.S. Government, Fort William
McKinley was specifically listed and included as one of the barrios of Makati.
 1960s: EMBOs and the Inner Fort barangays (Brgy. Post Proper Northside and
Southside) were established
 Since 1975, the Inner Fort barangays have been participating in the national and
local political exercises as barangays of Makati.
 The 1970, 1975 and 1980 census listed the EMBOs and Inner Fort Barangays
under Makati.
2
Excluding From The Operation Of Proclamation No. 423, Series Of 1957 Which Established The Fort
William Mckinley (Now Fort Bonifacio) Military Reservation Situated In The Municipalities Of Pasig,
Taguig, Parañaque, Makati And Pasay City, Metro Manila, A Certain Portion Of The Land Embraced
Therein Situated In The Municipality Of Makati And Declaring The Same Open To Disposition Under
The Provisions Of Act No. 3038 And Republic Act No. 274 In Relation The Provisions Of The Public
Land Act, As Amended.
3
Excluding From The Operation Of Proclamation No. 423 Dated July 12, 1957 Which Established The
Military Reservation Known As “Fort William Mckinley” (Now Fort Andres Bonifacio) Situated In The
Municipalities Of Pasig, Taguig, Pateros And Parañaque, Province Of Rizal And Pasay City (Now
Metropolitan Manila) As Amended By Proclamation No. 2475 Dated January 7, 1986, Certain Portions Of
Land Embraced Therein Known As Barangays Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo,
Comembo, Pembo And Pitogo, Situated In The Municipality Of Makati, Metropolitan Manila And
Declaring The Same Open For Disposition Under The Provisions Of Republic Act No. 274, And Republic
Act No. 730 In Relation To The Provisions Of The Public Land Act, As Amended
 1979: A cadastral mapping was done by DENR, including the disputed area as
Makati’s.
 Both Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 include EMBOs as within Makati.
 1993: when the cityhood bill of Makati was being deliberated in Congress, this
case was filed by City of Taguig.
 1994: New cadastral mapping which clearly show that the entire Fort Bonifacio
are within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati.
 Even before the boundary dispute and up to the present, Makati has actually
exercised jurisdiction over the Fort Bonifacio as depicted by the delivery of basic
services and other financial and social benefits or assistance to its EMBOs and
Inner Fort barangays.
ISSUES & HOLDING
 WON RTC erred in accepting as admissible Taguig’s evidence? – YES.
 To whom does the disputed area belong to? – Makati.
 WON Proc. Nos. 2475 and 518 are unconstitutional and invalid? – NO.
RATIO
RTC erred in accepting as admissible
Taguig’s evidence.
 The 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.
 Makati: “it is not just the copying but the injudicious copying of Taguig's
Memorandum that is the point.”
 Contrary to the findings of the lower court as between pieces of evidence
presented, Taguig was not able to prove this greater weight of evidence to
merit a favorable decision.
 Since 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.
The letters and judicial affidavit of the witnesses were not properly
identified by its authors during cross-examination. This is tantamount to
them being hearsay.
 Taguig: Makati waived its right to object when Taguig was allowed to
submit evidence.
o SC: In its PTB, Taguig stated that the affidavits will be attested on
to affirm and confirm the contents thereof, to which Makati relied.
It is contrary to logic that Makati would waive its right.
RTC erred in declaring the disputed
area as part of the territory of Taguig.
 Even granting that Plan Psu-2031, as submitted by Taguig, is a correct
mapping of the Hacienda Maricaban, We can deduce that:
(1) The Hacienda comprises of the cities of Taguig, Pasay, Paranaque, Pasig
(2) And Fort McKinley lies at the northern portion of the Hacienda
 Based on Taguig’s Brief, Taguig readily admits that San Pedro Macati lies
within what was formerly Pasay and thus adjoins Fort McKinley.
 The Formal Offer of Evidence of Makati with Motion to Transfer Marking
shows that:
o The registered title (OCT No. 291) was issued to Dolores Pascual
Casal October 1, 1906, pursuant to Decree No. 1368 of Court of
Land Registration
o Contrary to Taguig’s claim, the above is not the property acquired
by the US government mentioned in General Order No. 104, issued
on October 3, 1902, which became Fort McKinley Military
Reservation. Dolores could not have registered this property in her
name as she acquired title only in 1906.
 We are convinced that OCT No. 291 only covers the tract of land that was
subsequently acquired by the U.S. Government, falling under the
jurisdiction of Taguig, Pasay and Parañaque.
 The technical descriptions in Decree No. 1368 and OCT No. 291 show that
Fort McKinley lies outside and to the North of the property registered to
Casal. This sketch plan was certified by the DENR as to the correctness.
Moreover, this sketch plan coincides with the 3rd reference map obtained by
Engr. Almeda, Jr. from the U.S. National Archives pertaining to the area of
the proposed extension of Fort McKinley.
 Derivative titles of OCT No. 291 are TCT No. 1219, TCT No. 1688, TCT
No. 2288 and TCT No. 61524. Nowhere in said derivative titles and decree
was the disputed area, Parcel 4, Psu-2031, mentioned.
 Even prior to the filing of the Complaint in 1993, Proc. Nos. 2475 and 518
recognized that the EMBOs, which are portions of Parcel 4, are in fact
within Makati’s jurisdiction.
 As for OCT SP-001 issued by Pres. Ramos in 1995 through Special Patents
3595 and 3596, this should be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
o It conveyed ownership over a considerable portion of Fort
Bonifactio to FBDC, which indicates Taguig as the location.
 o However, upon closer examination, one can see that the location of it is human nature for a person to enforce his right when same is
Fort Bonifacio in said plans was indicated as Makati/Taguig, but threatened or invaded xxx”
the word “Makati” was crossed out.
o This is highly irregular.
o As testified by the Chief Geodetic Surveys Division of DENR, (1) DISPOSITIVE
the basis of the correction, (2) the name of the person who Appeal GRANTED. Preliminary Injunction is
authorized the correction, (3) the date of the correction and a (4) LIFTED. Ordering Taguig to cease and desist from
notation of “additional information after the date of approval” exercising jurisdiction over the disputed area.
should have been indicated in the box provided at the bottom right
portion of the plans.
o Those indicators were absent in both plans Swo-00- 001265 and
Swo-00-001266, hence OCT SP-001 cannot be relied upon.
o It appears that both Proclamations are even more likely impartial
as they were promulgated prior to the institution of the instant case.
The special patents suggests that they were made specifically to
favor Taguig.

RTC erred in declaring Proc. Nos.

2475 and 518 unconsitutional.
 RTC: both proclamations altered the boundaries and transferred subject
areas from Taguig to Makati without the benefit of plebiscites.
 Yet, the census since 1970 of the seven EMBOs indicate that they were
under the jurisdiction of Makati and that the residents were voting in the
national and local elections as Makati voters.
 Hence, Proc. Nos. 2475 and 518 did not “alter” boundaries but instead
confirmed that said area is under the jurisdiction of Makati.
 Taguig: EMBOs were not legally created under RA No. 3590 or the
“Revised Barrio Charter” which took effect in 1963.
 Taguig deliberately failed to mention that the EMBOs and the Inner Fort
barangays were already in existence prior to RA No. 2590. Thus, these
barangays automatically came under the provisions of said law without need
of having to be recreated under that law.
 It must be noted that Parcel 4 is adjacent to Makati and Pasig. Hence,
proximity-wise, Makati's claim is more credible than that of Taguig's.
 At any rate, while the proclamations were enacted in 1986 and 1990, it took
Taguig until 1993, when the proposed cityhood of Makati was being
debated, to file the instant Complaint.
“considerable delay in asserting one's right before a court of
justice is strongly persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim, since