FLI exec: Fence sits on our property

CEBU, Philippines - Filinvest Land Incorporated is claiming that the controversial perimeter fence on W. Geonzon Street in Barangay Apas sits on its property.

In a letter addressed to the Cebu City Council, FLI first vice president for VISMIN Tristan Las Marias informed the council that the concrete fence is part of their property, which was awarded by the Province of  Cebu through the Build Transfer and Operate project.

“These properties include all the existing structures and improvements together with the existing perimeter fence, which CPVDC now falsely claim to have been constructed at their expense,” he said.

 He said FLI’s property was covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 113132 and 104314 which include the perimeter fence. This was verified through a survey.

 The Capitol’s joint venture with FLI involves a 1.2-hectare property for the construction of four BPO towers where the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center and the Center for the Ultimate Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents used to stand.

 Las Marias said it was “false and misleading” that CPVDC and Asiatown IT Park Association, Inc. claimed that “the perimeter fence was constructed in 1996 at the sole expense of CPVDC and is located entirely within the property of CPVDC.”

 “It is thus erroneous for CPVDC and AITPAI to claim that the perimeter fence is located entirely within the property of CPVDC,” he added.

 This was contrary to the earlier statement of Jonas Arjona of Makati Development Corporation, who surveyed the structure for CPVDC testifying before the court that the perimeter fence is within the IT Park, which is owned by CPVDC.

 In a legal opinion, CPVDC legal counsel Julius Neri also said that they own the perimeter fence.

Neri said that the construction of the perimeter fence of CPVDC is mandated under Republic Act 7916, the implementing rules and regulations of RA 7916 and CPVDC’s Registration Agreement with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority to operate the Cebu IT Park as a special economic zone, which should be “fenced in.”

 The demolition of the fence, he said will violate RA 7916 and other provisions of the law. He claimed that the fence has been in existence for around 18 years now.

 “The ultimate demolition of only a portion of the CPVDC perimeter fence along the FLI project site is primarily intended to favor a private party, FLI, in order to give FLI access to the W. Geonzon street owned by CPVDC,” he added.

 Neri stressed that the fence is not a “public nuisance” as claimed by the city government.

“The subject CPVDC perimeter fence is located entirely within the private property of CPVDC and no portion thereof can be found on W. Geonzon Street as to obstruct the free passage of said street. It is not the nuisance contemplated under the New Civil Code,” the opinion read.

 Article 694 of the New Civil Code defines nuisance as an “act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water.”(FREEMAN)