CA rules Sandigan should hear case vs Marcoses
The Court of Appeals (CA) has set aside two decisions by two lower courts in Ilocos Norte that recognized the claim of ownership by the Marcos family of a 57-hectare property in Paoay where the Grand Ilocandia Resort is located.
In a 24-page decision dated Sept. 26, the appellate court’s Third Division dismissed the complaint filed by the Marcoses with the lower courts against the Philippine Tourism Authority’s continued control over the property, saying the case properly belonged in the Sandiganbayan, the antigraft court.
The court ruled that the Ilocos Norte courts did not have jurisdiction over the case because it was covered by the ill-gotten wealth recovery effort of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
“We have to note that the case before us is not an ordinary one. It is imbued with public interest and of transcendental significance,” the appellate court division said.
The case stemmed from the “unlawful detainer” complaint filed in the municipal court by Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., son of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, on May 2, 2007. The young Marcos, representing the family estate, asked the court to order the PTA to turn over the property to them.
He claimed that his father was the owner of the property on which the Malacanang Ti Amianan, Maharlika Hall, Suba Sports Complex and an 18-hole golf course are located. He said that in December 1978, his father and the PTA entered into a lease contract over the premises for a rental of P1 a year for 25 years, or from Jan. 1, 1978 up to Dec. 31, 2003.
In 1991, the PTA subleased the premises, particularly the sports complex, to Polar Peak Corp.
In 2005, the Marcos estate demanded that the PTA turn over the premises and remit the lease rentals to it. When the PTA refused to vacate the premises, the Marcoses took the case to the municipal court.
The municipal court at first dismissed the case, saying that the time period for such a case had lapsed and that it lacked jurisdiction over it. The Regional Trial Court, however, ordered the municipal court to hear the case. In 2010, the municipal court ruled in favor of the Marcoses and ordered the PTA to vacate the premises, pay over P947,000 in rentals from March 2007 to December 2008, and for PCGG to remit P1.8 million as advance payment and the two-month deposit it received from Polar Peak, in 1991, among other things.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals held that the municipal court should not have ruled in favor of the Marcos estate, considering that it was informed that the PCGG had filed a case in the Sandiganbayan seeking nullity of the 1978 lease contract between the elder Marcos and PTA.
“Surely, both lower courts could not have missed the naked fact that the basis of ejectment action was a lease agreement executed in 1978 between President Marcos and the PTA, an agency of government over which the President had control and supervision; that such arrangement was at least questionable from the standpoint of the 1973 Constitution (prohibition against unwarranted interests by an incumbent President); and that precisely the PCGG was calling the court’s attention to such an important matter such that it had filed a petition with the Sandigan,” said the court.
It held that the Sandiganbayan had original and exclusive jurisdiction, “not only over principal causes of action involving the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, but also over incidents including from, incidental to, or related to such cases.”
