A position that is difficult to understand

The situation in the few sitios of Mabuhay, Lubi and Nangka in Barangay Luz, Cebu City, looks, at first glance, no different from that in Barangay Apas. I am referring to the projected demolition of houses in these areas. In both cases, they involve certain parcels of land that are eventually adjudicated in favor of judicially declared owners after years of reported litigation.

Look again at their similarities. A certain Mr. Godinez asked the court to be put in possession of his landholding in Barangay Apas. I assume that the issue of ownership must have also been involved and decided in his favor. As a consequence of such judicial pronouncement of dominion, the owner seeks to exercise his rights, among the most severe of which should be jus abutendi. Of course, this owner, if reports are true, is only availing of his jus utendi.

On the other hand, reports claim that in Barangay Luz, an association of settlers, as distinguished from the persons of the setters themselves, is declared to be the owner of the contested parcels of land. While the reports are rather sketchy, I suppose that a majority of these settlers decided, at some time in the past, to avail of a land financing program called the Community Mortgage Plan.

Under this program, the settlers have banded themselves into a juridical person and as such entity, asked a government financing arm to help their association acquire the land. The government financer then sought, from the association, for an equity of 10 percent of the usual value of the property, for it to fork the whole amount to the land owner. This transaction should be evidenced by a mortgage agreement signed by the settlers as the mortgagors and the financing arm as the mortgagee. Thus, the Community Mortgage Plan. In payment of this supposed advance made by the financing agency, the members of the association are required to pay in stipulated terms, mostly 25 years.

In this Barangay  Luz case, the settlers lost their individual claims to their supposed residential lots by aligning themselves with the association. The trouble with this scheme is that even if most of the members have settled their installment payables, they still have to be considered liable for those members who have failed in their obligation.  I surmise that those of them who defaulted in their payment are the very owners of homes subjected to demolition.

So, in the Apas case, there is only one natural person who is declared an owner. In the Luz case, there is an association of settlers which is the decided owner against its former members.

Now, let us talk about the fly in the ointment because this is where their purported similarity ends. To fight against the Apas demolition, politicians have paraded their faces. I particularly noticed a lady councilor of the north district of this city. She was in the company of a congressman from the south district. This lady local lawmaker showed her face in the area to show to the beleaguered homeowners that she sympathized with them. She must have privately conveyed to them her own assurance that she would do whatever it would take to prevent the sheriff from tearing down their homes. And she was not politicking. If would not be melodramatic for her to say that if only she had the power, she would have ordered the sheriff to back off. The cause? Luoy ang mga walay yuta!

But, in the Luz case, this is the same lady councilor who is reported to be the force behind the association. I hope I was fed the wrong information because if this news is correct, this councilor is riding on two adverse positions. It would have been consistent for her to fight for the homeowners in both Apas and Luz. How come she is for the homeowners of Apas yet, she is the very personality behind the association that seeks to displace the homeowners in Luz?

The position of this councilor is most difficult to understand, to say the least. I wonder if the other councilors, the ones who were seen beside her while their political boss was taking with the sheriff in Apas, are with her in her Barangay Luz stand. Can we expect any clarification?