SC junks petition over sale of reclaimed land
Credit to Author: Jomar Canlas, TMT| Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 16:10:45 +0000
THE Supreme Court junked the petition of a lawmaker for the government to repossess a 41-hectare reclaimed land in Manila Bay because he did not have the legal personality to file the case.
In a seven-page en banc resolution, dated Dec.10, 2019, which lawyer Edgar Aricheta, clerk of court signed, the high court said that 1-Sagip party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta was not the proper party to bring the case to its attention by simply claiming that the property, allegedly sold to the Manila Bay Development Corp. (MBDC), a private firm, was public domain.
In his petition, Marcoleta said the transaction between the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) and the MBDC was “illegal and unconstitutional.”
The Supreme Court said the case must be filed by the Office of the Solicitor General and not Marcoleta.
“To begin with, petitioner does not appear to be the proper party to bring an action to nullify the sale of the subject land and to cancel its derivative land titles. Assuming that the sale of the subject land is indeed void for the reasons mentioned by petitioner, the appropriate suit to bring is for the version of such land back to the mass of public domain. Such suit however, can only be filed by the State — the original owner of such land — through the Office of the Solicitor General,” it ruled.
And even if Marcoleta had the legal personality, the Supreme Court was not the proper venue to hear the case because it was not a trial court that received evidence, it added.
“Unfortunately, a proper resolution of such issues presupposes a determination of facts that, in turn, requires reception and appreciation of various evidence. That, the Court, in the present action, is incapable of doing.”
Also named respondent was the Commission on Audit, Register of Deeds for Parañaque City, the Light Railway Transit Authority (LRTA) and the MBDC.
Based on his 33-page petition, dated April 19, 2018, Marcoleta, sought high court intervention seeking to compel the PRA to repossess the 41-hectare reclaimed land property along Roxas Boulevard known as the Central Business Park 2 where the Entertainment City stood. The property was sold to the MBDC in August 1988 for P472,037,050.
Marcoleta said the alleged sale to MBDC violated the 1987 Constitution since the property was reclaimed land and should be inalienable land of public domain.
“The subject reclaimed property is an inalienable land of the public domain and beyond the commerce of man. It had never become alienable nor disposable. Thus, the sale or conveyance thereof to respondent MBDC is undeniably null and void,” Marcoleta said.
Marcoleta also prayed for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the PRA from selling, transferring or conveying the property to any buyer of third-party purchaser, as well as the Parañaque City register of deeds from allowing the registration of a new deed for any creditor or third party.
He also asked the Supreme Court to declare “the deed of sale dated Aug. 23, 1988 and the Supplementary Deed of Sale dated Feb. 22, 1989, both executed by the Public Estates Authority (PEA, now respondent PRA) and respondent MBDC, to be null and void for being manifestly contrary to Sections 2 and 3, Article 12 of the Constitution.”
He also wanted the Supreme Court to order PRA to recover possession and ownership of the land in the name of MBDC, and LRTA.
The lawmaker cited as his legal basis for his petition the 2002 case of the Amari Coastal Development Corporation wherein the high court ruled that reclaimed lands were public domain.
In the PEA-Amari case, the Supreme Court voided the transfer by PEA of 368 hectares of reclaimed land in Manila Bay to Amari through a joint venture.
“Unless such lands are reclassified as alienable and disposable and declared no longer need for public use, these lands remain inalienable and thus are outside the commerce of man,” Marcoleta said.
“It is ineluctable that at the time of the execution of the said deed of sale, the aforementioned two official acts, namely, classification that the subject reclaimed property is alienable and open to disposition and a declaration that the same is not needed for public service were completely absent,” he said.
He clarified that there was even no law being passed to dispose of the property and even if there was, the sale of land of public domain to a private corporation was prohibited by the Constitution.
He also argued that the sale should be voided since it did not have a specific object as required under Article 1318 of the Civil Code and that it also failed to indicate the technical description of the land subject matter of the sale and transfer.
“The land planned to be covered by the deed of sale is clearly unidentifiable. This is fatal as the said land is the object of the contract between respondent PRA and respondent MBDC. Without an object, there is no contract to speak of. On this score alone, the deed of sale dated Aug. 23, 1998 is patently void,” he added.