The Supreme Court Clarifies How to Resolve Boundary Disputes Between Cities

G.R. No. 235316, December 01, 2021

The Philippines, with its complex history and numerous local government units (LGUs), often faces intricate boundary disputes. These disputes can significantly impact governance, resource allocation, and the lives of residents. One such case, Municipality of Makati vs. Municipality of Taguig, reached the Supreme Court, offering crucial insights into resolving territorial conflicts. The case centered on the contested areas of Fort Bonifacio and the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs), with both Makati and Taguig claiming jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s decision provides a framework for understanding how historical evidence, cadastral surveys, and the actions of lawful authorities are weighed in resolving these disputes, ultimately affirming Taguig’s claim.

Understanding Legal Principles Governing LGU Boundaries

Boundary disputes between LGUs are governed by a complex interplay of constitutional provisions, statutes, and jurisprudence. The power to create, divide, merge, abolish, or alter the boundaries of LGUs is inherently legislative. This power, however, is not absolute and is subject to constitutional limitations, particularly the requirement of a plebiscite. Specifically, Article X, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution states:

No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.

This provision ensures that any significant change in territorial boundaries is subject to the consent of the residents in the affected areas, safeguarding their right to local self-determination. However, this plebiscite requirement only applies to boundary alterations made after the 1973 Constitution. For changes made before this period, historical evidence and the actions of lawful authorities play a crucial role in determining territorial jurisdiction.

Cadastral surveys, official maps, and government issuances are also vital pieces of evidence. Courts often rely on these documents to ascertain the intent of the legislature and to determine which LGU has a better claim to the disputed territory. The concept of “critical date” is also relevant. This refers to the point in time when the dispute has crystallized. Acts performed by the parties after the critical date to bolster their respective claims are given little to no probative value, unless they are a normal continuation of prior acts.

Example: Imagine two neighboring barangays disputing the location of their boundary. Barangay A presents old maps from the 1950s showing the boundary along a river, while Barangay B presents a new survey conducted just before filing the case, shifting the boundary in their favor. The court is more likely to rely on the older maps, as they reflect the historical understanding of the boundary before the dispute arose.

The Makati-Taguig Dispute: A Case Breakdown

The Makati-Taguig dispute originated from conflicting claims over Fort Bonifacio and the EMBO barangays. Taguig filed a complaint in 1993, asserting that these areas were within its territory and that Presidential Proclamations altering the boundaries without a plebiscite were unconstitutional. Makati countered, claiming jurisdiction based on historical data, census results, and its cadastral mapping.

The case journeyed through various court levels:

• Regional Trial Court (RTC): Ruled in favor of Taguig, confirming Fort Bonifacio as part of its territory and declaring the Presidential Proclamations unconstitutional.
• Court of Appeals (CA): Initially reversed the RTC decision, favoring Makati. However, this decision was later set aside due to Makati’s forum shopping.
• Supreme Court: Ultimately sided with Taguig, affirming the RTC decision with modification.

A key piece of evidence was Survey Plan Psu-2031, which Taguig presented as evidence that Fort McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) was outside Makati’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this historical document, stating:

Between Psu-2031, which has been repeatedly recognized by duly constituted authorities, and a map, which was prepared at the instance of a party to the case, based on documents evidencing private proprietary interests, it is clear that the former carries more weight, impressed as it is with the approval of or adoption by the sovereign itself.

The Court also highlighted the significance of the contemporaneous acts of lawful authorities, noting that numerous government issuances referred to Fort Bonifacio as being situated in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, and Pasay, but rarely in Makati. As the Court stated:

From an examination of the contemporaneous acts of the legislature and the chief executive before the 1973 Constitution, two conclusions become apparent. First, Fort McKinley or Fort Bonifacio was situated in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Pasay, and sometimes Pateros. Second, Fort McKinley or Fort Bonifacio lay outside the jurisdiction of Makati.

Despite finding Makati guilty of forum shopping (pursuing simultaneous remedies), the Supreme Court chose to rule on the merits of the case, emphasizing the importance of resolving the long-standing boundary dispute. The Court explained its decision to proceed despite the procedural lapse:

The dispositive portion or the fallo of Our decision in G.R. No. 208393 limited Makati’s sanction to a fine. That fallo is Our decisive resolution of the case. Even if the body of that decision mentioned a finding of forum shopping, the opinion contained in the body of the decision may be resorted to only to determine the ratio decidendi for the disposition. It should not be taken out of context in order to add to or amend the clear words of the fallo.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The Makati vs. Taguig decision has significant implications for future boundary disputes in the Philippines. It underscores the importance of historical evidence, official surveys, and the contemporaneous acts of lawful authorities in resolving territorial conflicts. The ruling also clarifies that even in cases of procedural lapses, courts may choose to rule on the merits to ensure a just and lasting resolution.

Key Lessons:

• Gather Historical Evidence: LGUs involved in boundary disputes should meticulously gather historical maps, documents, and government issuances to support their claims.
• Rely on Official Surveys: Cadastral surveys and official maps approved by relevant government agencies carry significant weight in determining territorial boundaries.
• Consider Contemporaneous Acts: The actions of lawful authorities, such as laws, proclamations, and executive orders, provide valuable insights into the historical understanding of territorial jurisdiction.
• Avoid Forum Shopping: LGUs should avoid pursuing simultaneous remedies, as this can lead to dismissal of their case.

Hypothetical Example: A municipality is planning a major infrastructure project near a disputed boundary with a neighboring city. Based on the Makati vs. Taguig ruling, the municipality should conduct a thorough review of historical documents and official surveys to determine which LGU has jurisdiction over the project site. This will help avoid potential legal challenges and ensure that the project is implemented in accordance with the law.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is a boundary dispute?

A: A boundary dispute is a disagreement between two or more local government units (LGUs) regarding the location of their common boundary.

Q: What evidence is used to resolve boundary disputes?

A: Courts consider historical evidence, cadastral surveys, official maps, government issuances, and the contemporaneous acts of lawful authorities.

Q: What is the significance of the “critical date” in boundary disputes?

A: The critical date is the point in time when the dispute has crystallized. Acts performed after this date to bolster a party’s claim are given little weight.

Q: What is forum shopping, and why is it problematic?

A: Forum shopping is the practice of pursuing simultaneous remedies in different courts or tribunals. It is problematic because it can lead to conflicting decisions and wastes judicial resources.

Q: What is the role of a plebiscite in boundary disputes?

A: A plebiscite is required for any substantial alteration of boundaries made after the 1973 Constitution. It ensures that the residents of the affected areas consent to the proposed changes.

Q: How does the Makati vs. Taguig case affect future boundary disputes?

A: It provides a framework for understanding how courts weigh different types of evidence and clarifies that courts may rule on the merits even in cases of procedural lapses.

ASG Law specializes in local government law and boundary disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.