CEBU, Philippines – The city government has accused Capitol of making a mockery of the Regional Trial Court owing to the latter's refusal to vacate the main administrative building of the Department of Agriculture, which stands on a property whose ownership is under dispute.
In its 21-page memorandum submitted to court, the city said "The provincial officials are making a mockery of the orders of the court, displaying a disdainful disre-spect of its judicial office."
Last July 6, 2010, RTC Branch 5 Presiding Judge Douglas Marigomen issued a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the province from taking cognizance over the property, but Capitol allegedly continues to violate the order by refusing to vacate the main administrative building.
The city government filed a petition for judicial review and annulment of the province's title over the disputed six-hectare property. Former Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña, now the city's south district congressman, and one Carlos Lucero are among the petitioners.
The city argued that great damage will be made on the laboratory equipment and infrastructure at the DA compound, as they are not functioning for the purpose they were installed and deteriorating due to misuse.
The city reiterated that the land title held by the provincial government is a reconstituted one.
"On the face of said title, there is no indication where it came from. In short, before its reconstitution in 1958, there is no proof that the province ever owned the property," the memorandum reads.
It added that the only explanation for "this horrendous dearth of date crucial to validate a title" is that the Court of First Instance that issued the reconstituted title did not merely reconstitute an existing title, but created a new one by using a new survey so that a technical description could be contained in the court order dated June 4, 1958.
This was the reason why the technical description was based not from any original certificate of title, but from a court order, which, the city said, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
The memorandum further reads that the title over the DA compound can be traced to the source, which is Decree No. 4224 wherein such decree was issued in a title regis-tered by the land registration court under authority of a specific law and an executive order granting the said land for the public use of the then Bureau of Agriculture.
A certificate of title No. 114 was issued pursuant to Decree No. 4224 wherein the said title is where the said decree emanates, it added. Decree 4224 is issued in the name of the national government.
The plaintiffs added that the questioned lot was already granted in 1912 through EO 59 for the perpetual use of the then Bureau of Agriculture as a demonstration station, which now includes the laboratories and the regional offices.
"Title over the property cannot be transferred. EO No. 59 reserves the use of the lot for the civil public purposes, for the specific use of the Bureau of Agriculture," the city said.
The provincial government through Provincial Attorney Marino Martinquilla, however, said that even with the lapse of a TRO, the province will not touch the informal settlers in the area and will continue to treat them as decent human beings. - Mitchelle L. Palaubsanon and Flor Z. Perolina /JMO (FREEMAN)