City orders 100 families to vacate Hipodromo lot

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City government has already decided to compel the close to 100 urban poor families occupying the lot owned by the Ortega family in barangay Hipodromo to vacate the place because the city will no longer pursue its earlier intention to expropriate the lot.

Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña explained that the just compensation of P11,000 per square meter of the lot owned by spouses Ciriaco and Arminda Ortega as set by the court is too expensive for the urban poor families.

But since the court-declared “just compensation” of P31,416,000 has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in October 22, 2001, the city had decided to withdraw from its intention to expropriate the 2,856 square-meter lot of the Ortegas.

The city had filed a manifestation with the court to withdraw the expropriation proceedings for the reason that the price of the property is no longer practicable under the circumstances and purpose for which the expropriation case was filed.

Some sort of compromise agreement had been made in principle by the city officials and the Ortegas wherein the latter will no longer push through with the execution of the order for payment, but with the collateral obligation by the city to clear the property of all squatters and to relocate them.

The city is already determined to demolish all other illegal structures before it will turn over the lot to the owner, who also asked the city to waive all realty taxes in arrears for the reason that they have not benefited from their lot.

Vice Mayor Michael Rama had issued executive order 09-92 when he was still the acting mayor last March 5, creating a task force composed of some city officials for the smooth removal of the affected urban poor families at sitio Cahipa, Hipodromo and that it can be implemented immediately.

Rama said the conditions imposed on the compromise agreement are deemed acceptable and advantageous to the government.

The intention of the city to expropriate the lot of the Ortegas was made on September 26, 1994 still during the administration of Osmeña, and four years later, the Regional Trial Court upheld the city’s legal power to expropriate the lot for its urban poor project.

The court records showed that on May 21, 1999, the court had fixed the “just compensation” of the property at P11,000 per square meter, although Osmeña said it is so expensive for the urban poor families.

Since the city lawyers had failed to file an appeal on the decision within the reglamentary period, the twin court decisions became final and executory in 1999.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the local court’s ruling of the case because the city’s petition seeking to set aside the court’s twin decisions on the grounds of fraud, mistake or excusable negligence was filed late on October 28, 1999, or it was made after the reglamentary period had already lapsed.

It was learned that most, if not all, of the existing occupants of the lot are strongly against relocation.

That is why the city had decided to create a task force headed by city administrator Francisco “Bimbo” Fernandez to conduct intensive information dissemination at the site to explain the issue to the affected residents.

Rama said the residents must be made to understand fully that their relocation to another site is the best alternative solution to end their problem.

The Division for the Welfare of Urban Poor (DWUP) has been tasked to look for an alternative location for the affected families.

But it is already clarified that not all of the actual residents now of said lot will benefit the granting of relocation sites. DWUP was also tasked to properly screen the beneficiaries deemed qualified to the program considering the proliferation of squatters in the area.

When the city had decided to expropriate the lot in 1994, there were only 70 actual occupants of the lot, but the reports said the number of occupants had increased and the burden of relocation also increases.

Those families who will insist of occupying the place will be sued by the city before the court for unlawful detainer of the lot not really belongs to them. — Rene U. Borromeo/NLQ (THE FREEMAN)