Ver partner ordered evicted from Forbes mansion

MANILA, Philippines - A local court in Makati City has ordered the eviction of Edna Camcam, the former long-time companion of the late former Armed Forces Chief-of-Staff Fabian Ver from the posh North Forbes Park mansion that she has been occupying since 1994.

In a 13-page decision dated February 10, 2014, Presiding Judge Joselito Villarosa of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 66 also ordered the police to assist in the eviction of Camcam from the multi-million peso, five-bedroom mansion that sits on a 2,000-square meter lot at 3 Cambridge Circle.

Judge Villarosa also ordered Camcam to pay physician Daniel Vasquez the sum of P250,000 every month from January 2012, the time when Vazquez asked her to vacate the property.

It was after this notice to vacate that Camcam went to court to claim ownership of the mansion. The court has recognized Vasquez's ownership of the property.

In an earlier 12-page resolution dated Dec. 16, 2013, Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 59 Judge Winlove Dumayas dismissed the instant complaint for reconveyance filed by Camcam, a former banker.

Camcam, together with investment banker and real estate developer Benjamin Bitanga, earlier filed a reconveyance case with the court with a verified application for preliminary injunction against Vazquez.

Vasquez had asked Camcam to vacate the property after living there since returning to the Philippines from exile in the mid 1990s. Vasquez acquired the property after he agreed to continue making payments for it after Camcam had left the country on exile during the EDSA Revolution.

Camcam was requested by Vasquez to leave the property after Bitanga had executed a deed of sale with right of repurchase on September 27, 1994 over the property in favor of Vasquez. The deed was then re-executed on July 10, 1995.

The court ruled that neither Camcam nor Bitanga had taken any step to annul the deed of sale with right of repurchase over the contested property.

“The fact that the same deed was re-executed by the parties shows and is a reaffirmation that the parties really intended the subject property to be sold to the defendant (Vasquez). Had there been fraud or mistake in its sale to defendant or a different transaction was intended by the parties, i.e. loan transactions as plaintiffs claim, they would not have re-executed the same Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase,” the court ruled.

“Indeed, if their contention in the present case is true, they could have grabbed that opportunity to correct or amend its provisions and contents to reflect their supposed real intention or even have the transaction nullified. But the evidence on record would show that they did not have the same reformed pursuant to Article 1365 of the Civil Code or even nullified. The fact that they took no such steps is admitted by plaintiff Camcam herself,” the court added.