City wins case over lot bought for use as road

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City government won the case filed by Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corporation over a lot the city acquired 14 years ago.

Judge Silvestre Maamo Jr. of the Regional Trial Court dismissed the “legal redemption” case for absence of a cause of action.

The petitioners said they filed the case after learning that the owners of the lot in Barangay Camputhaw sold a portion of the property to the city during the time of Tomas Osmeña as mayor on January 12, 2000 without notifying the petitioners, the owners of an adjacent lot.

The city government acquired the lot at P624,000.

Upon the discovery, the corporation immediately notified the city by “personal delivery of their readiness to exercise their right to redeem and their readiness to tender the amount P624,000 consideration of the sale.”

 The corporation claimed that the remaining lots are “useless” without their properties being acquired or expropriated by the city government, invoking the provision of Article 1622 of the Civil Code.

 The Code stipulates that “whenever a piece of urban land which is so small and so situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, having been bought merely for speculation, is about to be resold, the owner of any adjoining land has a right of pre-emption at a reasonable price.”

 However, Maamo ruled that the said provision cannot be invoked since the lot was acquired for general purpose and not merely for “speculation.”

 “After due consideration of the facts on record, the court rules that Article 162 of Civil Code does not apply in this case, because the above conditions were not met. While the property in question maybe considered as urban land, it was not shown or even alleged in the complaint that its area would be rendered of no practical use within a reasonable time,” Maamo’s decision reads.

 “In fact, as clearly stated in the Memorandum of Agreement, the lot in question will be utilized as a road lot by the city. Neither was there any allegation in the complaint that the disputed lot was bought by the city merely for speculation,” the decision read further.  (FREEMAN)