Land developer Carmel Development Inc. (CDI) is resting on court decisions and the law to assert its right over Pangarap Village in Caloocan City amid the clamor of residents to quiet the title of the property.
In a letter, CDI lawyer Maria Frances M. Marfil said the issue of "Carmel's ownership over the land in question has been fixed since 1988," upon several decisions issued by the lower courts, Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC).
The SC en banc, according to CDI, already promulgated in January 1988 a decision on the "Tuason Case," declaring Presidential Decree 293 unconstitutional and void ab initio in all its parts. PD 293 was reportedly issued by then President Marcos, invalidating the titles of Pangarap Village’s former owners and declaring it open for disposition to members of the Malacañang Homeowners Association, Inc, which eventually led to the land dispute.
"Accordingly, the Tuason Case had the effect of restoring the titles of Carmel to full force and efficacy," CDI said.
"Thereafter, there were various legal attempts by the residents of Pangarap Village and the City Government of Caloocan to question the title of Carmel, however, all inevitably failed," it added.
CDI’s ownership over Pangarap Village "was once again amplified and upheld by no less than the Highest Court of the land" in a consolidated case referred to as "Reversion Case."
"This case sought reversion of the 156-hectare lot to the government. However, in due time this failed and was dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby affirming Carmel's ownership," CDI said.
In a recent interview, Pangarap Village's Barangay 181 head Rowelle Brin said residents are calling for a "status quo" in the area, which means no action or development should be done in the area while 21 petitioners are awaiting the Supreme Court resolution on the quieting of title.
But for CDI, the alluded case (Binghay vs. Carmel Development Inc), which was filed last August 2020, was already "dismissed by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals, for being res judicata or having only raised issues which had already been previously decided upon by various Courts."
"From this, it is clear that the case before the Supreme Court is a case with issues that have long been settled and the residents are merely trying to revive the issue, when, in fact, Courts are of the opinion that the quieting of title case should not have been even filed in the first place," Marfil said.
Issue on Injunction, Acts of Ownership
According to residents, utility companies are not being allowed to enter the area, leaving thousands without access to electricity and water. Instead, most of them rely on water retail stores and, sometimes, on generators or solar panels for electricity, which are expensive. The situation prevails despite a 2016 injunction supposedly issued by the court.
But CDI argued that the injunction, which was filed by the City of Caloocan against CDI "has been lifted by the Court of Appeals on 20 October 2017 by stating that, 'The April 25, 2016 Order...is declared null and void and the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the City of Caloocan is lifted. The June 6, 2016 order is likewise annulled and set aside insofar as the issuance of said writ of preliminary injunction is concerned."
Amid concerns raised by residents about armed security personnel deployed to the area, CDI's camp asserted that it "can exercise" acts that are afforded to it by law, as the "lawful owner of the property."
They cited Articles 427 and 428 of the Civil Code, which provides that they have "the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law" and "the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof," among others.
"Many cases in various forms and using different petitioners have been filed by Pangarap residents to curtail Carmel's rights to dispose of its lawful property, however, these have all been dismissed," CDI said.
"The residents of Pangarap have even tried to file criminal cases against Carmel for alteration of boundaries, occupation of real property, illegal demolition and usurpation of real property, which was captioned Florante Ugto vs. Gregorio Araneta III et al. This case was dismissed for lack of merit," it added.