Silliman U: CA didn't question property ownership

DUMAGUETE CITY, Philippines — The administration of Silliman University has debunked rumors that the Court of Appeals has questioned its ownership of property, which was the subject of legal action involving claimants to that piece of land.

SU on Wednesday issued this statement after learning that “false information is being circulated misinterpreting a recent decision of the Court of Appeals on a case filed by (the university) on Quieting of Title with prayers for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.”

The case arose after the alleged illegal occupancy of a group of claimants of a Silliman property at the old archery range of the university, according to Mark Raygan Garcia, SU spokesperson, in a statement made through a media release.

Garcia said that on September 9, 2001, some claimants surreptitiously and with ill intent entered the campus through the Chapel of Evangel in pairs and batches pretending to be churchgoers.

However, instead of entering the church, they went to the opposite side of the campus, where the archery range was located, and made an encampment there.

Despite eager attempts and negotiations by SU authorities, the property "claimants" refused to vacate the place insisting that they owned that parcel of land.

This prompted SU to file a case in court, seeking for a ruling that its title to the property in question was valid, and asking to stop the illegal occupation of the so-called claimants.

On October 20 of 2001, the court granted SU a temporary restraining order and, two days after, a preliminary injunction resulting in the eviction of the campers out of the campus.

The main case for Quieting of Title, on the other hand, was ruled in favor of Silliman on November 13, 2009, but the claimants elevated the case to the CA.

On December 11, 2013, the CA dismissed the complaint for quieting of title for the reason that “surreptitiously entering, occupying, and refusing to leave” are not grounds for quieting of title. The court's action was a ruling on procedural matter, without touching on the issue of ownership.

The Court cited a similar case where the same grounds constituted forcible entry and did not warrant a quieting of titles.

Based on this ruling, SU said the CA did not put into question nor cast any doubt on the university's ownership of the property, and neither did it affirm the claimants’ contention that they own the land. — (FREEMAN)