Ayala, SM dispute Bacolod property deal

Property giants Ayala Land Inc. (ALI) and SM Prime Holdings are locked in a dispute on who has the right to develop the prime property of the provincial government of Negros Occidental in Bacolod City.

In a disclosure to the Philippine Stock Exchange Monday, ALI said it completed last Friday negotiations with the Negros Occidental provincial government for the development of the provincial capitol property.

ALI said it was awarded the right to purchase 3.66 hectares of the property and to lease the remaining 4.04 hectares for a period of 50 years.

The firm said it planned to invest P6 billion to redevelop the area into a 7.7-hectare mixed-use civic and commercial district.

However, the property deal between ALI and the provincial government is being disputed in court by tycoon Henry Sy-led SM Prime, which claimed to have submitted a “far more superior” bid.

Shopping mall developer SM Prime assailed as “invalid” the award to ALI of the property following a controversial bidding conducted early this month.

SM Prime counsel Vince Bayhon alleged that the negotiated sale was “illicit” because of a pending petition for a court injunction filed by SM Prime against the Negros Occidental governor and the members of the committee on awards and disposal of properties before the Bacolod Regional Trial Court.

Bacolod RTC Judge Estefanio Libutan Jr. on Thursday denied SM Prime’s petition for a TRO on the negotiated deal between Ayala and the provincial government, saying the courts would not interfere with the government in its exercise of its discretion in the acceptance or rejection of bids, unless it has been shown that it gravely abuses or exceeds its jurisdiction.

Libutan has set for July 21 the hearing on SM Prime’s injunction petition.

Negros Occidental Gov. Alfredo Marañon Jr. has also maintained that the result of the negotiated proposal of ALI was much more advantageous to the province than the bids made on July 7 and noted that the CoA memorandum cited by SM Prime that allowed for a 10-percent variance on a bid did not apply to real property. /INQUIRER