Ting rejects city's P13 million payment; Tom unfazed

CEBU, Philippines - Even if businessman Roque Ting will no longer accept the city’s P13.5-million compromise payment for the parts of his property affected by the South Reclamation Project, Mayor Tomas Osmeña said he is not worried.

“No problem,” Osmeña said regarding the decision of Ting to wait for the final order in hopes the Supreme Court will affirm the ruling of the Regional Trial Court in his favor.

RTC judge Eric Menchavez earlier ruled that Cebu City should pay Ting P37,702,500 for the latter’s 4,222-meter lot in the foreshore of sitio Mawmawan, San Roque, Talisay, that was used as part of the water channel separating the reclamation project from the mainland.

Osmeña said he tried his best to settle the matter within his term so that it will not give any headache to the incoming mayor, but Ting might be disappointed because of Vice Mayor Michael Rama’s earlier comment questioning the payment of the property that was partly submerged.

Although Rama and the members of the city council have already agreed to give way to the P13.5-million compromise payment to Ting for the lots still above water, the Filipino-Chinese businessman said he will no longer pursue the deal.

The decision of the RTC is presently being reviewed by the Cebu-based appellate court after Cebu City lawyers elevated the matter to them believing that Menchavez erred in his ruling.

The city lawyers claimed that the RTC committed reversible errors, first when it did not dismiss the complaint filed by Ting for specific performance based only on a contract that the city never participated.

Although Ting had signed a memorandum of agreement with former Metro Cebu Development Project-3 director Sammy Darza that the government will exchange Ting’s property with a city lot, the MCDP does not officially belong to Cebu City.

Former city attorney Rodolfo Golez had argued that MCDP was created by the Regional Development Council to oversee the reclamation project, and not by the city as claimed by the court.

They also said the court has another grievous error in allowing evidence to be presented over claims and contentions not contained in the original complaint for specific performance without allowing any amendment of the complaint.

The original complaint of Ting just stated a limited damage to his property amounting to P500,000 but the court allowed Ting to raise the amount.

“When the court allowed the introduction of additional evidence, the court violated a specific rule of procedure under Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court,” the appeal of the city lawyers claimed.

Thirdly, city lawyers also accused the court of committing errors in its ruling that found the city liable for the payment of Ting’s property when the area, although it was titled, is situated on coastal waters and not on land, and there in no clear evidence as to its amount.

Menchavez ruled that despite the conflicting evidence presented by the parties, the court finds that the mass of evidence preponderate in favor of Ting. — Rene U. Borromeo/BRP   (THE FREEMAN)