THE Court of Appeals (CA) has junked the ownership claim of the Pateros municipal government over certain parcels of land inside Fort Bonifacio, leaving the cities of Makati and Taguig to continue their legal dispute over the controversial property.
In a two-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Magdangal de Leon, the CA’s Former Ninth Division denied the motion filed by the Pateros municipality seeking the reversal of its February 5 decision that upheld the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City’s ruling dismissing its complaint for the judicial declaration and confirmation of certain parcels of land to be within its territorial jurisdiction.
The CA held that the petitioner failed to raise new arguments to warrant the reversal of its ruling.
“Finding the matters raised by appellant are a mere rehash of its previous arguments, and there being no cogent reason to modify, much less reverse our assailed January 29, 2015, decision, the instant motion for reconsideration dated February 19, 2015, is denied,” the CA declared.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Jane Aurora Lantion and Victoria Isabel Paredes.
In its February 5 decision, the CA held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in Pasig when it dismissed the complaint of Pateros for lack of jurisdiction.
The trial court concluded that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, due to the failure of the municipality of Pateros to comply with Sections 118 and 119 of the Local Govenrment Code.
Section 118 mandates that 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 Sanggunian of the parties concerned.
Section 19, on the other hand, provides that any party may elevate the decision of the Sanggunian concerned to the proper RTC having jurisdiction over the area in dispute.
The CA pointed out that complaint brought before the RTC was not a case where the Sanggunian concerned jointly rendered a decision resolving the boundary dispute of the parties concerned.
It noted that what preceded the case were resolutions that reflect unilateral acts of the Sangguniang Bayan of Pateros.
The Pateros municipal government’s complaint covers seven barangays, which include Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo and Pitogo with an aggregate area of 3,044,568 square meters.
The said barangays have been declared as part of Makati’s territory by virtue of Proclamations 2475 and 518 issued on January 7, 1986, and January 31, 1991, by former Presidents Ferdinand Marcos and Corazon Aquino, respectively.
The ownership of the said barangays is also being claimed by the Taguig City government based on its complaint that was filed on September 21, 1993, against Makati, which is still pending before the CA.
In a ruling issued on July 30, 2013, decision, the Court of Appeals declared that the said property belongs to the Makati City government.
The Taguig City government has filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision.
The Pateros municipal government invoked the 1885 Plano de Provincial de Manila, the 1901 Map of Luzon Island and the 1891 Plano de Hacienda de Maricaban in claiming ownership over the said barangays.
It pointed out that it has been exercising jurisdiction over the disputed properties since 1801, when it was declared an independent town.
It recounted that its land area was reduced during the American regime when the latter built and exercised authority over the military reservation known as Fort William McKinley.
It added that even after the declaration of Philippine Independence in 1946, when Fort William McKinley was ceded to the Philippine government and renamed as Fort Bonifacio, it continued to exercise jurisdiction over the parcel of land.
The Pateros municipal government also cited Proclamation 481 by former President Diosdado Macapagal, which allegedly stated that a certain portion of the land embraced in said proclamation was part of Pateros.
Pateros said it lost control of the said properties following the issuance of Proclamations 2475 and 518.
It has sought the nullification of the two proclamations in its original complaint filed before the RTC in Pasig.