PHILIPPINE REAL ESTATE and RELATED NEWS in and around the country . . .
.
.

Court upholds legality of Baguio market project

[ Manila Bulletin Online ] July 11, 2008
By DEXTER A. SEE

Junks petitions filed by cooperatives and market vendors

BAGUIO CITY — The Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) Branch 59 here upheld the legality of a city ordinance approving a P1.7-billion market development plan to be undertaken by the Uniwide and Realty Development Corp.

The ruling put an end to a 12-year legal battle over the case.

In a 110-page decision, RTC Judge Iluminada Cabato junked for lack of merit petitions filed by several groups of vendors who questioned the legality of the development plan.

However, the judge advised the city government to determine if Uniwide has still the capacity to implement the market development plan.

Records show that Uniwide is reportedly under rehabilitation because of its questionable financial condition.

In 1996, the Baguio Market Vendors Association (Bamarva), Hilltop Open Market Vendors Credit Cooperative (Homevesco), Lilia Calicdan and others opposed the entry of Uniwide in the project to develop the Baguio market. They filed petitions seeking the annulment of Ordinance No. 38-1995 which prescribes the guidelines for the implementation of the market project.

The petitioners also sought the nullification of the Uniwide contract and the "build, develop, and lease agreement."

Acting on the petition, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the vendors. This put on hold the implemenation of the market development project for over the past 12 years.

In upholding the validity of the ordinance, Judge Cabato cited it is settled in jurisprudence that laws, including ordinances, enjoy the presumption of constitutionality.

The court stated that the petitioners failed to show enough basis that the terms and conditions of the contract are disadvantageous to the city.

On the legality of the "build, develop and lease agreement," the court ruled that complainants are not parties in interest and they have no legal interest in the cases.

Ironically, no contracts of lease of the market stalls were presented by the petitioners and they were not in the master list of stallholders in the market.

The court affirmed earlier rulings that a person who occupies a land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract binding them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand.

"Tolerance is not the surest footing on which a right can be established," the court said.

In denying the petitioners’ claim for damages, the court ruled that the complainants have merely general grievances and incidental interest, and so they did not sustain any direct injury as a result of the city government’s act of implementing the plan for the development of the city market.

Cabato reprimanded the petitioners in connection with their claim that no public consultation was held before the implementation of the development plan, stating that they were less than honest in claiming that there was no consultation as this is belied by their own evidence. She noted that there were several meetings conducted by the city council for the purpose and they even participated in the planning.

While Homvesco as a cooperative has a right to manage public markets, the court ruled that this right does not include the construction of buildings.

City officials lauded the court’s decision, saying that the development of the city market into a modern hub could now ne pursued as planned.
_____________________________________________________________________

real estate central philippines
Copyright ©2008-2020