CA dismisses Pateros claim over Fort Bonifacio
MANILA, Philippines – The ownership claim of the Municipality of Pateros over Fort Bonifacio suffered a setback after the Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying its complaint to declare parcels of land to be within the town’s jurisdiction.
In its 13-page decision, the appeals court 9th division through Associate Justice Magdangal De Leon said there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Pasig City Regional Trial Court Branch 271 when it dismissed the complaint of Pateros for lack of jurisdiction.
The Pasig court in its ruling said it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case due to the failure of the Municipality of Pateros to comply with Sections 118 and 119 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
Section 118 of the LGC states that boundary disputes between and among local government units as much as possible be settled amicably. If the dispute involves a component city or municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the other it shall be jointly referred to the respective Sanggunians (councils) of the parties.
On the other hand, Section 119 provides for the manner of appealing the Sanggunian’s decision to the trial court.
But the appeals court said the case taken to the Pasig court was not a case where the Sanggunian of the concerned local government units jointly rendered a decision resolving the case.
“Rather, what preceded the case below were, as the trial court rightly observed, resolutions that reflect unilateral acts of the Sangguniang Bayan of Pateros,” the appeals court said.
“Clearly, the RTC cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the case, since there was no decision rendered jointly by the sanggunians concerned. Neither can the RTC assume original jurisdiction over the boundary dispute, since the LGC allocates such power to the Sangguniang Bayan of Pateros and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati and Taguig, acting as one body,” the appeals court added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Jane Aurora Lantion and Victoria Isabbel Paredes.
The Pateros municipal government’s complaint covers seven villages which include Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo and Pitogo with an aggregate area of 3,044,568 square meters. These areas were declared as part of Makati’s territory by virtue of Proclamations No. 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 villages is also being claimed by the Taguig City government based on its complaint that was filed on September 21, 1993 against Makati. Then, on July 30, 2013, the Court of Appeals declared that the said property belongs to the Makati City government. The Taguig City government appealed the decision which is still pending before the appeals court.
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 villages.
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 noted though 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 No, 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 Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518.
