MANILA, Philippines — Pateros has been given another chance to prove its claim over land granted to Taguig, after the Supreme Court (SC) ordered a Pasig court to reopen the dispute involving the municipality’s stake over a portion of the Fort Bonifacio military reservation.
In a 28-page decision promulgated by the First Division on April 19, the SC granted Pateros’ petition for review that questioned the Court of Appeals (CA)’s dismissal of its claim over the 766-hectare Parcel 4 of Survey Plan Psu-2031.
The finality of the SC’s latest decision that granted Taguig’s jurisdiction over Parcels 3 and 4 of Psu-2031 does not “foreclose Pateros’ right to pursue its claims,” read the decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo with division members Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Rodil Zalameda, Ricardo Rosario and Jose Midas Marquez concurring.
The court was referring to its December 2021 decision that became final and executory when it denied Makati’s last-ditch effort to appeal Taguig’s win over Fort Bonifacio, including the lifestyle hub and financial center Bonifacio Global City.
“While there is some overlap as to the subject matter (G.R. No. 235316 resolved the dispute between Makati and Taguig over Parcels 3 and 4 of Psu-2031, whereas the present controversy involves Pateros’ claim over Parcel 4 of Psu-2031), there is neither identity of parties nor causes of action,” the court said.
Because Pateros was not a party to the case between Makati and Taguig, it was not yet given a chance to present its historical evidence justifying its claim on the disputed area.
“(I)t would seem at first blush that there is no longer any reason for Pateros to maintain suit against Makati. The Court however notes that in its complaint, Pateros seeks not just the recovery of territory, but also prays that both Makati and Taguig account for proceeds they have received while exercising jurisdiction over the disputed area,” the high court said.
The SC thus ordered the Pasig Regional Trial Court Branch 271, Taguig city station, to reinstate Pateros’ civil case “and proceed with dispatch.”
The high court said there is a need to settle the three-decade land dispute among the three local government units (LGUs).
“The present case involving three LGUs in Metro Manila highlights the importance of defining the precise territorial boundaries of LGUs to forestall multiple and lengthy lawsuits spawned by any uncertainty or confusion in the existing statutes, maps or executive issuances,” the court said.
The court agreed that Pateros did not err in filing the case before the trial court and eventually the CA, because Pateros exhausted all the means for settlement of boundary disputes under the Local Government Code.
While the Makati and Pateros councils initially met, Taguig refused to join the table for a peaceful settlement.
But even if Pateros complied with the Local Government Code, it “unilaterally” decided that there was a failure for amicable settlement, which only served to “exacerbate territorial conflicts between them,” the court said.
Pateros based its claim over the land on historical maps during the Spanish colonial rule, as it decried that its territory was significantly reduced when Parcel 4 of Survey Plan Psu-2031 became part of Fort Bonifacio, a former American military reservation ceded to the Philippine government.
The parcel of land included the Makati military barangays called “embos” or “enlisted men’s barrios – Cembo, South Cembo, Comembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, Pembo, and Pitogo – which the SC found to be part of Taguig.