SC rules in favor of Taguig over BGC jurisdiction

The Supreme Court ruled with finality that Taguig City has jurisdiction over Bonifacio Global City (BGC).

“The Supreme Court has decided with finality that jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, by superior legal rights and historic title, belongs to Taguig,” Taguig City Hall said in a statement.

It said both parties, including Makati which contested the decision, are “victors in the dispute because both put their trust in the legal system (where) rule of law prevailed.”

“The end of this legal dispute marks the beginning of a new chapter for Taguig and its people,” it said.

The SC announced the entry of judgement of its December 2021 decision that affirmed the Pasig Regional Trial Court’s ruling siding with Taguig and denied Makati’s petition for review on certiorari.

The ruling resolved a decades-long question: who really has jurisdiction over Bonifacio Global City.

In March 1992, then-President Corazon Aquino created the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) through Republic Act no. 7227.

The Americans left and the military bases they used that stretched as far back as the colonial era needed to be repurposed and turned into “integrated developments, dynamic business centers and vibrant communities.”

It was the BCDA’s job to administer camps like John Hay Air Station, Wallace Air Station, O’Donnell Transmitter Station, San Miguel Naval Communications Station, Mt. Sta. Rita Station (Hermosa, Bataan) and, of course, those portions of Metro Manila military camps which may be transferred to it by the President. That included Fort Bonifacio.  

President Aquino’s successor Fidel Ramos placed certain portions of Fort Bonifacio under the administration of the BCDA in December 1992. Based on the plans, the portions were located in what was then the municipality of Taguig.  

In November 1993, Taguig fired the opening salvo in what was to become a protracted legal battle over those portions of land. Civil Case 63896 was a complaint filed in the Pasig Regional Trial Court against the then-municipality of Makati and certain officials of the Ramos-era Cabinet, including Executive Secretary Teofisto P. Guingona, Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Angel Alcala and Land Management Bureau Director Abelardo Palad, Jr.  

The complaint was initiated because of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518, which transferred to the City of Makati certain parts of Fort Bonifacio that were allegedly within the boundary of the Municipality of Taguig. The proclamation was done “despite the absence of authority on the part of the President and without the benefit of a plebiscite as required by applicable provisions of the Constitution.”  

Taguig also sought a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against Secretary Alcala and Director Palad, Jr. from disposing of the lots covered by Proclamation No. 518, “and to restrain Makati from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or otherwise treating as part of its territory two specific areas: the area of 74 hectares that was uninhabited or otherwise consisted of farmlands or wide open spaces before the issuance of Proclamation No. 2475 in 1986;” and what was then known as “Inner Fort” or military camp proper of Fort Bonifacio.   

While this case was active, in January 1995, President Ramos issued a special patent (No. 3595) that conveyed to the BCDA the tracts of land in Barangay Fort Bonifacio in Taguig. However, one month later, he canceled this special patent through a new one (No. 3596) and instead granted to the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. The original Certificate of Title that covered the tracts of land in Special Patent No. 3596 was then issued to the FBDC on February 10, 1995.  

FBDC was initially a joint venture between the BCDA and a consortium led by Metro Pacific Investments Corp (MPIC). The private group had a 55 percent stake in the FBDC while the BCDA controlled the remaining 45 percent. Of course, most people know what happened after that: the project was stalled because of the effects of the worldwide financial crisis of 1997 but eventually moved forward when Ayala Land and the Campos family’s Evergreen Holdings Inc. bought out MPIC’s stake in FBDC.  

Makati City filed its own civil case (No. 96-554) against Taguig City, the BCDA, FBDC, the LMB, and others to essentially get them to stop from requiring and accepting payment of real estate taxes and other taxes or fees on lands located in Fort Bonifacio and other disputed land areas Barangays Post Proper Northside and Post Proper Southside, as well as requiring business permits and licenses and from imposing on, collecting and accepting permit/license fees from the residents of these barangays or Fort Bonifacio.   

Taguig argued that there was already an existing case (No. 63896) between both parties that it had filed and so it moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 96-554. The Makati RTC did dismiss this case in September 1998. In its decision, the court said, “After a careful evaluation and study of the arguments adduced by both parties, this Court finds and so holds that this case must be dismissed on at least two grounds, namely: litis penden[t]ia and violation of the anti[-]forum shopping circular. Undisputedly, Civil Case No. 63896 earlier filed with and still pending before the Pasig RTC involved the tracts of land covered by Special Patent No. 3596 and O.C.T. No. SP-001. In said case, respondent Taguig sought to recover them or that the same be declared within its territorial jurisdiction.”  

Makati raised its case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s ruling in June 2003 and eventually, the Supreme Court also sided with the RTC, issuing a decision June 2008 dismissing Makati’s suit and affirming the earlier decision of the RTC.  

With that out of the way, let’s trace what happened to Taguig’s original complaint against Makati about the BGC land dispute.   

In July 2011, 18 years after the complaint was filed, the Pasig RTC through Judge Briccio Ygaña ruled in favor of Taguig ruling that “Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, is confirmed part of the territory of the plaintiff City of Taguig; that Proclamation No. 2475, Series of 1986 and Proclamtion [sic] No. 518, Series of 1990 are hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and INVALID, insofar as they altered boundaries and diminished the areas of territorial jurisdiction of the City of Taguig without the benefit of a plebiscite as required in Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, and enjoining the defendants…from disposing of, executing deeds of conveyance over, issuing titles, over the lots covered by Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518; and enjoining defendant Municipality, now City of Makati, from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or otherwise treating as part of its territory, Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031 comprising Fort Bonifacio.”  

Makati filed several comments and appeals. The Court of Appeals initially sided with Makati, denying Taguig’s motion to dismiss and agreeing with Makati “that the Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam were based on different causes of action, raised different issues, and sought different remedies.”  

A new judge (Judge Leili Suarez) took over the BGC land dispute case in the RTC, denying Makati’s Motion for Reconsideration in December 2011.  

Several other back and forth comments and rejoinders and appeals happened over the years. However, in April 2022, the Supreme Court issued a resolution that Fort Bonifacio, including BGC and several other area barangays are in fact, under the jurisdiction of Taguig City. The SC reinstated a decision dated July 2011 issued by the Pasig RTC.  

“Considering the historical evidence adduced, cadastral surveys submitted, and the contemporaneous acts of lawful authorities,” the SC decision read. “We find that Taguig presented evidence that is more convincing and worthier of belief than proffered by Makati. Consequently, we rule that Taguig has a superior claim to the disputed areas.”   

The decision that came out on Tuesday (April 3) actually stems from a resolution dated September 2022 denying Makati City’s motion for reconsideration and reinstating the July 2011 decision of the Pasig RTC.   

In a statement released by the High Court, “no further pleadings, motions or other communications shall be entertained in this case as (the SC) ordered the immediate issuance of an entry of judgment.”