Municipality of Pateros vs. City of Taguig and City of Makati

A Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over a boundary dispute between local government units as an original action when the administrative settlement procedure under Section 118 of the Local Government Code has been rendered impossible by the refusal or inaction of the other LGUs concerned. The "sanggunian concerned" in a boundary dispute involving a municipality and a highly urbanized city within Metro Manila is the joint body composed of the respective sanggunians of all contending claimants, and no single sanggunian may unilaterally hear and decide its own petition.

The Municipality of Pateros, the City of Taguig, and the City of Makati are local government units in Metro Manila that have been embroiled in a boundary dispute over portions of the former Fort William McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) for approximately 30 years. The disputed areas include Barangays Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo, Pitogo, and Bonifacio Global City, which were declared part of Makati by Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 issued in 1986 and 1991, respectively. The dispute is governed by Sections 118 and 119 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) and Rule III of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Administrative Order No. 270 of 1992), which establish the administrative procedure for settling boundary disputes before judicial recourse may be had.

The Municipality of Pateros, the City of Taguig, and the City of Makati are local government units in Metro Manila that have been engaged in a boundary dispute over portions of the former Fort William McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) for approximately 30 years. The disputed areas, consisting of Barangays Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo, Pitogo, and Bonifacio Global City, were declared part of Makati by Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518 issued by Presidents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Corazon C. Aquino on January 7, 1986 and January 31, 1991, respectively.

On December 8, 1993, Pateros filed a Complaint for Judicial Declaration of the Territorial Boundaries of Pateros against Makati before the RTC of Makati, Branch 139, docketed as Civil Case No. 93-4529. Pateros alleged that its original territory of 1,038 hectares was reduced to only 166 hectares following a cadastral mapping conducted by the Bureau of Lands in 1978, and sought nullification of Proc. No. 2475. Earlier, on November 22, 1993, Taguig had filed a similar complaint against Makati before the RTC of Pasig, Branch 153, docketed as Civil Case No. 63896, claiming that certain parcels of land inside Fort Bonifacio were erroneously declared as situated within Makati. Pateros sought to intervene in Civil Case No. 63896 but was denied for its failure to withdraw Civil Case No. 93-4529.

In a Decision dated July 8, 2011, the RTC Pasig, Branch 153 ruled in favor of Taguig, confirming the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation as part of Taguig's territory and declaring Proc. Nos. 2475 and 518 unconstitutional for altering boundaries without a plebiscite. Makati appealed to the CA, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 235316, where the Court held that Taguig presented more convincing evidence and had a superior claim to the disputed areas.

Meanwhile, on June 14, 1996, the RTC Makati dismissed Pateros' Civil Case No. 93-4529 for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the CA sustained the dismissal, and in G.R. No. 157714, the Supreme Court denied Pateros' petition but, in the interest of justice, addressed the boundary dispute. The Court held that Section 118 of the LGC applied, and directed the parties to comply with Section 118(d) and (e) and Rule III of the IRR, "without prejudice to judicial recourse."

Heeding the Court's directive, Pateros, through Resolution No. 11-2009 dated August 3, 2009, formally requested the Makati Sanggunian for a dialogue. Makati accepted, and dialogues were held on two occasions. However, in view of the pending boundary dispute between Makati and Taguig, Pateros recognized that an amicable settlement could not be reached. In a Joint Resolution dated November 23, 2009, the sanggunians of Pateros and Makati agreed that Pateros should invite the Taguig Sanggunian to a similar dialogue. Through Resolution No. 17-2009, Pateros formally requested the Taguig Sanggunian for a dialogue, but by March 15, 2010, Taguig had not replied. Pateros passed several follow-up resolutions, and on August 16, 2010, Resolution No. 24-2010 informed Makati that the Joint Resolution was no longer in effect because Taguig had not responded. In Resolution Nos. 14-2011 and 15-2011, the Pateros Sanggunian declared that no amicable settlement was reached and formally tried the issue itself. Resolution No. 56-2011 certified that Taguig had ignored Pateros' requests for more than 120 days, and Resolution No. 57-2011 declared that efforts to settle had failed.

On May 10, 2011, Pateros filed a Complaint against Makati before the RTC Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. 11-421, but moved to have it dismissed without prejudice in view of the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 63896. On March 27, 2012, Pateros filed the present Complaint before the RTC Pasig, Branch 271 against both Makati and Taguig, seeking judicial declaration that Parcel 4 of Survey Plan Psu-2031, comprising about 766 hectares, is within Pateros' territorial jurisdiction. Pateros claimed to have exercised jurisdiction over the area since it was declared an independent town in 1801, based on documents such as the Plano De Provincial De Manila of 1885 and the Plano dela Hacienda de Maricaban of 1891, and alleged that residents continued to secure cedula personal taxes from Pateros.

Taguig moved to dismiss for alleged failure to comply with rules against forum shopping and to pay filing fees, while Makati filed an Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction for failure to comply with Section 118 of the LGC and Article 16, Rule III of its IRR, as the certification of no settlement was unilaterally issued by the Pateros Sanggunian. The RTC Pasig, Branch 271 granted Makati's motion to dismiss, ruling that Pateros failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 118 and 119 of the LGC and Arts. 16 and 17 of the IRR, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The CA affirmed, holding that the RTC cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction absent a joint decision by the sanggunians concerned, nor assume original jurisdiction since the LGC allocates such power to the sanggunians of Pateros, Makati, and Taguig acting as one body.

• Efforts at Amicable Settlement: Pateros argued that it exerted all efforts to have a dialogue with respondents, but their wanton refusal made it impossible to comply with Sections 118 and 119 of the LGC, and the CA should have noted that the Court's directive in G.R. No. 157714 was directed at both Pateros and Makati, not solely at Pateros.
• No Joint Resolution Required: Pateros argued that nothing in Section 118 requires a joint resolution by the sanggunians concerned, as it merely requires that the dispute be referred for settlement to the respective sanggunians of the parties, and the use of "sanggunian" in the singular form in paragraph (e) supports this interpretation.
• Judicial Recourse: Pateros stressed that the Court's directive in G.R. No. 157714 was "without prejudice to judicial recourse," and having substantially complied with Section 118, it was entitled to avail of judicial remedy.
• Equal Protection: Pateros claimed a violation of its right to equal protection of the law, as the CA placed the burden of compliance solely on Pateros without requiring Makati to fulfill its obligation.
• Procedural Defects: Pateros argued that the alleged non-payment of filing fees was not the ground for dismissal by the RTC, that failure to attach relevant documents does not deprive the court of jurisdiction, and that Mayor Medina had authority under Section 444(b)(3)(ix) of the LGC to institute judicial proceedings.
• Forum Shopping: Pateros maintained that its intervention in Civil Case No. 63896 was mentioned in documents attached to the petition, and that the Court in G.R. No. 157714 directed the re-filing of the case, so no forum shopping was committed.

• Procedural Defects: Taguig asserted that the petition was defective due to non-payment of docket fees, failure to attach relevant pleadings, and failure to state the authority of Mayor Medina to file the petition, warranting dismissal under Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• Non-Compliance with LGC: Taguig argued that Pateros failed to comply with the procedure for settlement of boundary disputes, as original jurisdiction pertains to the joint sanggunians of the LGUs involved, and the use of "sanggunian" in the singular form cannot be construed to allow the Pateros Sanggunian to unilaterally issue a resolution.
• Not Bound by G.R. No. 157714: Taguig pointed out that it was not a party to the case between Pateros and Makati and thus is not bound by the judgment rendered in G.R. No. 157714.
• Forum Shopping: Taguig claimed that Pateros was guilty of forum shopping for filing numerous cases against both Makati and Taguig, and its certification of non-forum shopping failed to disclose its earlier attempt to intervene in Civil Case No. 63896.
• Territorial Claim: Taguig maintained that the contested areas belong to it, citing the Taguig Cadastral Mapping which included all of Parcel 3 and Parcel 4, Psu-2031 or Fort Bonifacio in its entirety.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Makati sought outright dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of RTC Pasig, Branch 271 in view of the July 30, 2013 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 98377, which held that the disputed area is within Makati's territorial jurisdiction, and argued that Pateros failed to substantially comply with Section 118 of the LGC and its IRR.

• Compliance with LGC Procedure: Whether Pateros complied with the requirements of Sections 118(d) and (e) of the LGC and Rule III of the IRR, as directed by this Court in G.R. No. 157714.
• Justification for Judicial Recourse: Whether the failure of the Taguig Sanggunian to respond to the resolutions seeking settlement of the boundary dispute through council-to-council dialogue justified the filing of Civil Case No. 73387-TG against both Taguig and Makati.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: Whether RTC Pasig, Branch 271 has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Civil Case No. 73387-TG.

• Compliance with LGC Procedure: No. Pateros' unilateral actions were not compliant with the procedure envisioned in Sections 118(d) and (e) of the LGC and Rule III of the IRR, which require a joint referral to the respective sanggunians and a joint exercise of their jurisdiction over boundary disputes.
• Justification for Judicial Recourse: Yes. The unwillingness of Taguig to submit the case for settlement, evident from its silence and inaction, resulted in failure of amicable settlement under Section 118(e), and Pateros acted well within its rights in pursuing judicial recourse, similar to the ruling in Province of Antique vs. Judge Calabocal.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: Yes. RTC Pasig, Branch 271 has jurisdiction over the dispute as an original action, not as an appeal under Section 119 of the LGC, because Makati and Taguig cannot insist that Pateros strictly observe a procedure they themselves have made impossible to follow.

• Compliance with LGC Procedure: Under the LGC, the respective legislative councils of the contending local government units have jurisdiction over their boundary disputes, and such jurisdiction is jointly exercised by these councils or sanggunians. In this case, it was only Pateros through its own Sangguniang Bayan that submitted a "Petition" on its territorial claim and "formally tried" the same because of the lack of response from both Makati and Taguig. The Pateros Sanggunian, acting independently, cannot be deemed the "sanggunian concerned," as the absurd result would be the sanggunian of the LGU having a territorial claim hearing and deciding its own petition. This incongruous situation is not intended by the legislature, which encourages amicable settlement of boundary disputes between LGUs, and not unilateral actions that would only exacerbate territorial conflicts between them.

• Justification for Judicial Recourse: In Province of Antique vs. Judge Calabocal, the Court held that respondents' resort to filing a case before the RTC was warranted where the other party's categorical refusal to settle effectively blocked any way to continue following the steps in the IRR. Here, Pateros similarly took steps to initiate the process of having the three sanggunians amicably settle their boundary dispute in accordance with Section 118(d) and (e) of the LGC. While there was no formal response akin to the resolution issued by the Province of Antique, the unwillingness of Taguig to submit the case for settlement is evident from its silence and inaction, which likewise resulted in failure of amicable settlement under Section 118(e). And while Makati initially seemed amenable to submitting to the procedure, the silence and inaction of Taguig made such apparent inclination moot as the joint body would require the sanggunians of all three LGUs involved.

• Jurisdiction of the RTC: The Court recalled that in G.R. No. 157714, it directed the parties to follow the procedure established by the LGC "without prejudice to judicial recourse." The Court upheld the jurisdiction of RTC Pasig, Branch 271 over the petition filed before it by Pateros, lest it be left without any recourse or legal remedy to assert its territorial claims. The Court clarified that Civil Case No. 73387-TG should be treated as an original action, as indeed it was filed as such by Pateros, and is not to be considered as an appeal under Section 119 of the LGC. The Court also addressed the effect of G.R. No. 235316, holding that the finality of that case does not constitute res judicata in any of its three concepts as to foreclose Pateros' right to pursue its claims, as there is neither identity of parties nor causes of action. Pateros was not a party to that case and has not yet had an opportunity to present its own evidence to prove its allegation of a historical claim to the disputed area. The Court further noted that 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, and may thus maintain Makati as defendant to the case.

• Joint Exercise of Jurisdiction over Boundary Disputes — Under Section 118(d) of the LGC, 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. The "sanggunian concerned" envisioned by the LGC is the joint body composed of the sanggunians of all contending claimants, acting as one body, which shall formally try and decide the issue. A single sanggunian acting independently cannot be deemed the "sanggunian concerned," as the absurd result would be the sanggunian of the LGU having a territorial claim hearing and deciding its own petition.

• Exception to Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in Boundary Disputes — Where a local government unit has taken all necessary steps to settle a boundary dispute within the procedure set out in the LGC, but the other LGU's categorical refusal or inaction makes it impossible to follow the procedure, the initiating LGU may resort directly to judicial recourse. The recalcitrant LGU cannot demand that the other party follow the procedure when it has made it impossible for any party to do so, as this would leave the aggrieved LGU without any recourse or legal remedy to assert its claim.

• Res Judicata in Boundary Disputes — The finality of a judgment in a boundary dispute case between two LGUs does not constitute res judicata against a third LGU that was not a party to the case and was denied intervention. For "bar by prior judgment" to apply, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. If only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then "conclusiveness of judgment" applies. Where there is neither identity of parties nor causes of action, res judicata does not apply.

• "The respective sanggunians of Pateros, Makati, and Taguig, acting as a joint body, would be 'the sanggunian concerned' envisioned by the LGC. Such joint body shall formally try and decide the issue. The Pateros Sanggunian, acting independently, cannot be deemed the sanggunian concerned, as the absurd result would be the sanggunian of the LGU having a territorial claim hearing and deciding its own petition." — This passage defines the "sanggunian concerned" under Section 118 of the LGC and explains why a single sanggunian cannot unilaterally resolve a boundary dispute involving multiple LGUs.

• "Petitioners cannot demand that respondents now follow the procedure when they themselves have made it impossible for any party to follow the same. The Province of Antique's Resolution No. 142-2012 dated 25 May 2012, stating that the Province of Antique was not amenable to any form of settlement, effectively blocked any way to continue following the steps in the IRR." — This quotation from Province of Antique v. Judge Calabocal articulates the principle that a party cannot insist on strict compliance with a procedure it has made impossible to follow, which the Court applied to the present case.

• "Hence, notwithstanding its flawed interpretation of Sec. 118(d) and (e) of the LGC, We find that Pateros acted well within its rights in pursuing judicial recourse by filing Civil Case No. 73387-TG. Similar to our finding in Province of Antique, We rule that RTC Pasig, Branch 271 has jurisdiction over the dispute. Makati and Taguig cannot insist that Pateros strictly observe the procedure they themselves have made impossible to follow." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi of the case, establishing the RTC's jurisdiction over the boundary dispute as an original action.

• Municipality of Pateros vs. Court of Appeals, 607 Phil. 104 (2009) — Controlling precedent in which the Court directed the parties to comply with Section 118(d) and (e) of the LGC and Rule III of the IRR "without prejudice to judicial recourse," and which the Court in the present case interpreted and applied.
• Province of Antique vs. Judge Calabocal, 786 Phil. 787 (2016) — Controlling precedent followed by the Court, holding that resort to the RTC is warranted where the other LGU's refusal to participate in the settlement process makes compliance with the LGC procedure impossible.
• Municipality of Makati vs. Municipality of Taguig, G.R. No. 235316, December 1, 2021 — Related case in which the Court resolved the territorial dispute between Makati and Taguig, holding that Taguig has a superior claim to the disputed areas; the Court in the present case held that this judgment does not constitute res judicata against Pateros.
• City of Taguig vs. City of Makati, 787 Phil. 367 (2016) — Related case in which Makati's counsels were found guilty of direct contempt for forum shopping; referenced in the procedural history of the present case.
• Calanza vs. Paper Industries, Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), 604 Phil. 304 (2009) — Cited by the RTC for the proposition that Article 17(i), Rule III of the IRR merely provides for the appellate jurisdiction of RTCs over boundary disputes.
• Gutierrez vs. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil. 463 (1991) — Cited for the definition of res judicata as "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided."
• Ligtas vs. People, 766 Phil. 750 (2015) — Cited for the distinction between "bar by prior judgment" and "conclusiveness of judgment" as concepts of res judicata.
• Mariano, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 312 Phil. 259 (1995) — Cited for the importance of drawing with precise strokes the territorial boundaries of a local government unit.

• Section 118, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Establishes the jurisdictional responsibility for settlement of boundary disputes, providing that boundary disputes shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably, and that disputes involving a municipality and a highly urbanized city shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective sanggunians of the parties.
• Section 119, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Provides that any party may elevate the decision of the sanggunian concerned to the proper Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area in dispute, which the Court clarified applies to appeals from a joint sanggunian decision, not to original actions filed directly with the RTC.
• Article 16, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 270 (1992) (IRR of the LGC) — Provides that boundary disputes involving a component city or municipality and a highly-urbanized city shall be jointly referred to the respective sanggunians.
• Article 17, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 270 (1992) (IRR of the LGC) — Sets forth the procedures for settling boundary disputes, including filing of petition, answer of adverse party, hearing, joint hearing, failure to settle, decision, and appeal.
• Section 5, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provides that failure of the petitioner to comply with requirements regarding payment of docket fees, deposit for costs, proof of service, and contents of the petition shall be sufficient ground for dismissal; cited by Taguig in support of its procedural objections.
• Section 444(b)(3)(ix), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Cited by Pateros to establish the authority of the municipal mayor to institute judicial proceedings for recovery of funds and property.

Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurred in the decision.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.