Supreme Court junks petition vs. sale of reclaimed Paranaque land

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) en banc has dismissed a petition to nullify certain land titles under the Manila Bay Development Corporation (MBDC) and Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA).

The petition for prohibition and mandamus was filed by Sagip party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta who argued that the Philippine Reclamation Authority’s (PRA) sale of a reclaimed land along Roxas Boulevard, Seaside End in Paranaque City to MBDC violated the Constitution.

The estate land described as “Central Business Park II” was among the lands reclaimed by the PRA under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCRRP) back in 1977.

In its resolution dated December 10, the en banc said that Marcoleta “does not appear to be the proper party to bring an action to nullify the sale of the subject land and to cancel its derivative land titles.”

“Assuming that sale of the subject land is indeed void for the reasons mentioned by petitioner, the appropriate suit to bring is for the reversion of such land back to the mass public domain,” the resolution reads.

This suit, the en banc said, can only be filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) since it is the State that originally owned the land.

Further, the en banc said that even if Marcoleta is the proper party to raise the action, his first two arguments are “absolutely devoid of any merit.”

Under Marcoleta’s petition, he argued that the sale “lacked an object certain at the time it was contracted”, saying that the original Deed of Sale had no technical description of the sold land.

He added that a Supplementary Deed of Sale “does not, as it cannot, cure a null contract.”

But the en banc said that the “mere absence of a technical description of the subject land in the original Deed of Sale does not mean that the sale did not have an object certain at the time it was contracted.”

The en banc pointed out that the deed also identified the land using “adequate descriptions” such as “Central Business Park II” and the indication of its location and size.

“Jurisprudentially, the use of non-technical yet determinable description of lands is accepted as adequate compliance with the requirement for an object certain under Article 1458 or the Civil Code,” the resolution reads.

Marcoleta also argued that even if the deed validly identified the subject land, the sale is still void as it is an inalienable land of the public domain.

The en banc, however, said that the subject land is “not inalienable land of the public domain outside the commerce of man.”

“The subject land, it must be pointed out, is land completely reclaimed in pursuant to the MCRRP and which has been titled in the name of the PRA by virtue of special patents issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino under PD (Presidential Decree) No. 1085,” the resolution explains.

“Full-blown trial needed”

Marcoleta’s third argument was that assuming the land is alienable public land, the sale remains void as it violated the constitutional proscription barring private corporations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by the way of lease.

In effect, Marcoleta sought that the land titles in the names of MBDC and LRTA be cancelled as well.

But the en banc said that even if Marcoleta can establish a ground to nullify the sale under this argument, “an outright cancelation of the land titles in the name of MBDC and LRTA cannot be ordered by the Court as a matter of course.”

The en banc explained that the LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation.

Citing several previous cases, the en banc said that it may be considered “to be already beyond the scope of the constitutional bar prohibiting private corporations from holding alienable lands of the public domain.”

As per the MBDC titles, the en banc said that it cannot be cancelled “at least not until a full-blown trial for that purpose has been conducted.”

“Even assuming the fact that the sale of the subject land to the MBDC may be regarded as prima facie unconstitutional, the latter must still be afforded an opportunity to present evidence in defense of its title in an appropriate proceeding,” the resolution read.

What happened before

According to the decision, the group of  Jacinto L. Ng won the bid for the purchase and development of the estate land described as “Central Business Park II” located along Roxas Boulevard, Seaside End in Paranaque City on June 17, 1988.

The area was among the lands reclaimed by the PRA under the MCRRP.

Following the advice of PRA to organize themselves into a corporation, Ng’s group established the MBDC which eventually led to the execution of a Deed of Sale between the PRA and the MBDC on August 23, 1988.

The deed identified the sold land as that parcel “located at Roxas Boulevard, Seaside End, Metro Manila, and designated as Central Business Park II… containing an aggregate area of 410,467 square meters.”

A Supplementary Deed of Sale was executed on February 28, 1989 which further clarified the piece of land sold.

The MBDC has since sold some portions of the land to the LRTA and transferred some portions back to PRA.

Currently, there are 15 land titles covering the said land—eight in the name of MBDC, three in the name of LRTA, and four in the name of PRA, the decision states.

The said area is now the land where Entertainment City is located and hosts several casinos and other business establishments.

GSG