Municipality of
Pateros v. City of Taguig
G.R. No. 220824
April 19, 2023
FACTS:
Makati
has been embroiled in litigation with co-respondent Taguig and Pateros. Subject
of their boundary dispute are portions of the Fort Bonifacio. By virtue of
Proclamation Nos. 2475 and 518, the subject barangays were declared to be part
of Makati. Pateros filed a Complaint for Judicial Declaration of the
Territorial Boundaries of Pateros with prayer for the Issuance of a WPI and TRO
against Makati, the DENR, before the RTC of Makati. Pateros alleged that its
original territory of 1,038 hectares was reduced to only 166 ha., following a
cadastral mapping conducted by the Bureau of Lands.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not Pateros complied with the requirements of Sec 118 (d) and (e) of the
LGC.
HELD:
When
Pateros filed its complaint with the RTC of Makati, Makati was still a
municipality. We take judicial notice of the fact that there was no Sangguniang
Panlalawigan that could take cognizance of the boundary dispute, as provided in
Section 118(b) of the LGC. Neither was it feasible to apply Section 118(c) or
Section 118(d), because these two provisions clearly refer to situations
different from that obtaining in this case. Also, contrary to Makati's
postulation, the former MMA did not also have the authority to take the place
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan because the MMA's power was limited to the
delivery of basic urban services requiring coordination in Metropolitan Manila.
The MMA's governing body, the Metropolitan Manila Council, although composed of
the mayors of the component cities and municipalities, was merely given the
power of: (1) formulation of policies on the delivery of basic services
requiring coordination and consolidation; and (2) promulgation of resolutions
and other issuances, approval of a code of basic services, and exercise of its
rule-making power. Thus, there is no merit in Makati's argument that Pateros
failed to exhaust administrative remedies inasmuch as the LGC is silent as to
the governing body in charge of boundary disputes involving municipalities
located in the Metropolitan Manila area. There being no Sangguniang
Panlalawigan that can assume jurisdiction over the boundary dispute between a
municipality and a highly urbanized city situated within Metro Manila, such
jurisdiction shall be jointly exercised by the respective sanggunians of the
contending claimants.
