CA: Sale of SRP lots legal
The Court of Appeals has denied a petition that questioned the sale of a 45.2-hectare lot at the South Road Properties in Cebu City.
In effect, the appellate court affirmed a decision of the Regional Trial Court, which found the sale valid.
“All things considered, the court finds no grave error in the Trial Court’s dismissal of the petitioner-appellant’s action for declaratory relief. Apparently, the elements of such action are wanting in this case necessitating its dismissal,” reads the ruling of Associate Justice Dorothy Montejo - Gonzaga.
The ruling was promulgated on April 30, 2019 and was concurred to by Associate Justice Edgardo Delos Santos and Associate Justice Marilyn Lagura-Yap.
Former prosecutor Romulo Torres raised the issue to CA after the trial court dismissed the civil case he filed against the City Council in 2015.
Councilor Jose Daluz III said the denial of Torres' petition and motion for reconsideration means that the sale of the lots was valid and that the city government can use the billions it earned from the sale.
The consortium of Ayala Land, Cebu Holdings Inc. and SM Prime Holdings was declared the highest bidder with P10.009 billion for a 26.3-hectare property at the SRP while Filinvest Land, Inc. was the highest bidder with P6.7 billion for a 19.2-hectare property.
Torres sued the council to question Cebu City Resolution No. 13-0418-2014, which authorized then mayor Michael Rama to dispose of the 45.2 hectares lots at the SRP.
Named respondents in the original case were Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella and the 2015 members of the Council, including Nestor Archival, Sr., Margarita Osmeña, Lea Japson, Eugenio Gabuya Jr., Mary Ann de los Santos, David Tumulak, Nendell Hanz Abella, Sisinio Andales, Alvin Arcilla, Roberto Cabarrubias, Ma. Nida Cabrera, Gerardo Carillo, James Anthony Cuenco, Alvin Dizon, Richard Osmeña, Noel Eleuterio Wenceslao, and then ABC President Philip Zafra.
The CA said the action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument.
It also said Torres' petition did not meet the requisites for a declaratory relief, which mandates justiciable controversy, that the controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse, that the party seeking relief has legal interest in the controversy, and that the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
“Not all the foregoing requisites for an action for declaratory relief are present in this case” the CA said.
CA said a thorough reading of the questioned ordinance and resolution revealed no controversy was obtained in the case, as alleged by Torres.
The court also ruled that Torres had no cause of action against the city officials, especially that there is nowhere in the petition that he asserted his legal right he seeks to protect.
“Besides, petitioner-appellant (Torres) had no reason to question the validity of the questioned resolution for it was, as discussed above, valid in the first place,” the decision reads.