CEBU – The Supreme Court ruled that the more than half a hectare property in Capitol Site that the city expropriated in 2001 for an urban poor project is owned by Matilde Palicte.
The high tribunal earlier ordered the Cebu City government to pay P20.3 million to Palicte’s heirs but the city still failed to completely settle its payment because the urban poor beneficiaries reportedly could not afford to pay the P4,500 price per square meter.
But the Supreme Court first division presided by Chief Justice Reynato Puno ruled that “Matilde Palicte’s exclusive ownership of the subject properties became final and executory.”
With this ruling, there is no more reason that the city would delay the payment of Lot 1049 occupied by more than 200 urban poor families.
The court already froze the corresponding amount from the city’s funds in at least three depository banks because the city lawyers have claimed that one of their reasons of not paying Palicte of the whole amount is the claims of the Estate of Felimon Sotto.
The Estate of Don Felimon Sotto also claimed ownership of Lot 1049 and for three other lots - 1051, 1052 and 2179-C - registered under Palicte’s name. The claim was later proven otherwise.
Records showed that in June 1967, Pilar Teves and the other heirs of Carmen Rallos, the wife of Felimon Sotto, filed with the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City a complaint against the estate for the recovery of properties, which Felimon inherited from his wife.
The court ruled in favor of Teves and other heirs of Rallos. The Estate was even ordered to pay damages in the amount of P233,963 and to satisfy the judgment on damages, six parcels of lands and two residential houses were levied upon and eventually sold at a public auction in 1979.
As one of the heirs of Don Felimon, Palicte redeemed the four lots, including Lot 1049 and later secured a new title for the lot on her name.
But a few years later, the Estate headed by Sotto’s eldest son Marcelo, required Palicte to turn over the lots to him, saying that the original owner of the lot is not Palicte because it was allegedly the Estate who provided the funds so she could redeem the properties.
The court later rejected the Estate’s move to require Palicte to turn over the redeemed properties because such move was only made after the court order became final and executory.
“Hence, the probate court was correct in setting aside the motion to require Matilde Palicte to turn over the subject properties to the Estate considering that Palicte’s title and ownership over the subject properties have already been upheld in previous final decisions and order,” the SC ruled. — Rene U. Borromeo/JMO (THE FREEMAN)