Court sides with Talisay lot owners CA to Cebu City: pay P37 million

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals 20th Division has denied the appeal filed by the Cebu City government involving two parcels of land in Talisay City  for lack of sufficient merit.

In her decision, Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla affirmed the ruling of the trial court directing the city government to pay P37.7 million to spouses Roque and Fatima Ting.

"Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, we find no error committed by the trial court and deny the appeal. The decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby affirmed," the decision read.

 It said no justification was presented by the city government to warrant the reversal of the assailed decision.

The city government earlier filed an appeal before the CA for the decision holding them liable for P33,700,000 for the value of couple's lot Nos. 7-B and 7-C; P3,912,500 for the value of its two warehouses and rest house demolished, P60,000 as attorney's fees and P30,000 as expenses.

The city government said the trial court erred in their decision.

"The court a quo committed reversible error in not dismissing the complaint for specific performance based only on a contract that the city never participated nor committed to be bound," the city pointed, insisting that they were not included in the memorandum of agreement entered into by Samuel Darza, project director of the Project Coordination and Monitoring Office, Metro Cebu Development Project III and the couple.

The parcels of land denominated as Lot Nos. 7-A and 78-B in Talisay City with areas of 1,634 square meters and 2,588 square meters, respectively, were the subject of the case.

On Sept. 7, 1997, the couple alleged that they entered into an agreement with Cebu City through Darza. In the said agreement, Darza would exchange its lot denominated as Lot C-1 with the couple's Lot Nos. 7-A and 7-B.

However, the couple said in 1999 the MCDP violated the MOA when it did not comply with the agreement they entered into. The couple said the MCDP used and destroyed their lots and the improvements there and turned it into an open canal for the Cebu South Reclamation Project, and also did not transfer its Lot C-1 to them.

In their reply, the city government denied being a party to the MOA, citing MCDP III has a "separate and distinct legal personality."

"Hence, not being a party or privy to the MOA plaintiffs-appellees (couple) therefore had no valid cause of action against the City of Cebu," the city stated, adding Darza represented on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and not the City of Cebu.

To support their contention, the city presented Darza and engineer Michael Cañete.

Darza testified that he did not exchange MCDP III's Lot C-1 with the couple's Lot 7-A and 7-B because it was all underwater. 

Darza and Cañete likewise, denied demolishing the improvements in the lot. The two said the couple did some reclamation works on their lots, which caused the Philippine Estates Authority to issue a cease and desist order.

With the foregoing facts, the trial court ruled in favor of the couple which was affirmed by the CA.

"We concur with the court a quo's finding that plaintiffs-appellees had a cause of action against defendant-appellant City of Cebu even if it was MCDP III who entered into the MOA. MCDP III was task to oversee the Cebu South Reclamation Project with the City of Cebu as the executing agency of the said project. Being the executing agency, the city is bound by the contract entered into by MCDP III in the pursuit of the SRP. As executing agency defendant-appellant is responsible in the implementation and supervision of the said project," the decision read.

Padilla, together with other justices, ruled that the trial court did not err 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 citing Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court and Supreme Court decision in Royal Cargo Corp. v. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc.

Padilla further said the couple is entitled to compensation for their subject lots as well as the improvements. She added the allegation of the city government that the subject lots were all under water were not supported by clear evidence.

"A review of the evidence and exhibits presented by plaintiffs-appellants readily shows that the subject lots are all dry land," the decision further read. /BRP  (FREEMAN)