Camcam’s legal battle over Forbes Park mansion far from over after SC ruling

THE legal battle of Edna Camcam, said to be a long time partner of the late former Armed Forces of the Philippine chief of staff Gen. Fabian C. Ver, to regain ownership of a Forbes Park mansion appears to be far from over after the Supreme Court set aside the ruling issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) which declared a certain Dr. Daniel Vasquez as the real owner of the property.

In a nine-page decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the Court’s Third Division granted the petition filed by Camcam seeking the reversal of the C A’ decision on January 26, 2016 and resolution dated September 16, 2016 in the case docketed as CA-G.R. CV. 103230.

The said decision and resolution of the Appellate Court denied Camcam’s appeal and affirmed the resolutions issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City on December 16, 2013 and April 7, 2014 rejecting Camcam’s ownership claim over the said mansion.

The trial court granted Vasquez’s motion for summary judgment and declared the latter as the real owner of the property on Cambridge Circle.

Vasquez told the court that he allowed Camcam to occupy the property rent-free upon the request of Ver who went on exile following the ouster of then President Marcos in 1986.

The trial court noted that in September 1994, Camcam executed a legal document titled “guaranty” admitting Vasquez as the owner of the property.

It added that the petitioner also acknowledged and confirmed this document during the trial.

Camcam was forced to claim ownership of the property by filing for reconveyance with application for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the RTC of Makati City.

The complaint was filed after Vasquez camp filed an ejectment case against her following her refusal to vacate the property.

After getting an unfavorable ruling before the Makati RTC, Camcam appealed before the CA where she argued that the disposition of the case was premature considering that her camp was still seeking an amendment of her complaint and that there were genuine issues in the case necessitating a fullblown trial.

But the CA denied her petition, saying that the RTC did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment despite the pendency before the different division of the appellate court of a related case docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 129738 wherein Camcam raised the issue on the propriety of the amendment of the complaint.

The CA reasoned that there was no injunctive order from the CA in CAG.R. SP No. 129738 ordering the RTC to desist from continuing with the proceedings of the case.

However, in a decision dated August 28, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 129738, the CA granted the petition and reversed the decision of the RTC.

It held that the RTC erred in denying petitioner’s motion to amend her complaint because there was no finding that the motion was filed with the intent to delay as mandated under Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court.

The CA ruled that refusal to allow amendments may be based only on the ground that the motion was with intent to delay.

In appealing the CA’S decision in CA-G.R. CV. 103230 before the SC, Camcam argued that the supervening event, the subsequent amendment of their complaint should have rendered the case moot.

She averred there are genuine issues that should be threshed out in a full-blown trial.

Thus, she asked the SC that the assailed CA ruling be reversed, and the RTC be ordered to set the case for trial and conduct further proceedings.

In ruling in favor of Camcam, the Court noted that the CA’S decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 129738 was already affirmed by the Court on August 24, 2016 and has attained finality.

“The Rules on Civil Procedure provide that the amended complaint supersedes the complaint. Thus, the grant of the Motion for Summary Judgment, and even the Motion for Summary Judgment itself, have no leg to stand on, as they were both based on the superseded complaint,” the Court ruled.

Thus, the SC reversed and set aside the CA ruling in CA-G.R. CV. No. 103230 and ordered the case to be remanded to the RTC to conduct further proceedings based on Camcam’s amended complaint.

Prior to the controversy, Vasquez claimed that Ver asked him to provide Camcam and her children a home as they were returning to the Philippines from exile.

Being Ver’s long-time friend, Vasquez offered the Forbes Park mansion, which was acquired from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) through Benjamin Bitanga.

On September 27, 1994, Bitanga executed a Sale with Right of Repurchase over the property in favor of Vasquez.

Camcan on the same day issued the guaranty declaring Vasquez as the owner.

In their quest to wrest control of the property, Camcam and Bitanga questioned the original sale of the property from UCPB to Bitanga and then to Vasquez.

They said the real intention was to enter into a loan transaction and not a sale.

The trial court did not buy the argument and said the two did not even bother to annul the document, taking cognizance of Camcam’s claim that she was a veteran banker and an expert in mortgage transactions.

Bitanga is Camcam’s co-petitioner in the case.