Vol. XXII, No. 155 [ BusinessWorld Online ]
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 | MANILA, PHILIPPINES
THE AGRICULTURAL science campus of De La Salle Philippines has lost its claim over certain lots in the disputed Maysilo estate.
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the Supreme Court said Gregorio Araneta University Foundation could not claim certain parcels of land in Caloocan City since an earlier deal giving it the right over the lots had been nullified by the lower courts. University officials were not immediately available for comment.
The Maysilo estate is divided into 34 parcels of land straddling Malabon, Caloocan City and parts of Quezon City.
The foundation is now known as the De La Salle Araneta University. It was integrated into the De La Salle system in 1987 and specializes in veterinary medicine and agricultural science.
It earlier claimed two parcels of land within the Maysilo estate, having entered into an agreement with the original occupants of the land, including the Bajamonde family. The areas in question were known only as lots 54 and 75.
The campus had cited the deal when it intervened in the main case involving the whole Maysilo estate in 1961. The tenants had filed a complaint before the then Court of First Instance in Pasig to compel the government to sell to them their occupied portions. This was on the back of a Supreme Court ruling in 1954 allowing the state to expropriate the contested Maysilo estate and resell the property to its occupants.
In the meantime, a separate case before the Court of First Instance of Rizal had nullified the university’s agreement with the occupants for supposedly being fraudulent. In 1986, a Pasig Court restored the titles for lots 54 and 75 to the Bajamondes.
The university then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court did not have the authority to cancel the titles. The trial court should merely look into the original complaint, a suit for specific performance and damages, it said.
But the appellate court upheld the ruling, forcing the university to raise the issue before the high court. In its ruling however, the high tribunal said: "The case cannot constitute a collateral attack on [its] title which, to begin with, was irregularly and illegally issued."
To begin with, it was the university that had sought to intervene in the main case "and claimed that it has [an] interest in the subject matter being litigated." Therefore, when the agreement was found to have been replete with fraud, the trial court "acted very much within its jurisdiction in ordering the cancelation of [the titles]," the high court said. — Ira P. Pedrasa
_____________________________________________________________________________________
