John Hay investors turn down BCDA offer to renegotiate contracts

Third-party investors at the 247-hectare Camp John Hay have turned down the offer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to renegotiate their leasehold contracts to avoid eviction from the former American recreational facility in Baguio City.

During the continuation of the Court of Appeals summary hearing, lawyer Howard Calleja, counsel for 59 property owners, said a renegotiation would be tantamount to “double compensation” on the part of BCDA.

He said his clients have fully paid their obligations until the end of their 50-year leasehold agreement in 2046.

“Such negotiation is illegal and ultra vires (beyond the powers). It is our submission that being a government property, it is not subject to renegotiation but for bidding,” Calleja said.

He pointed out that BCDA should not go beyond the ruling of the arbitral panel ordering it to pay Camp John Hay Development Corp. (CJHDEVCO) P1.4 billion and for the latter to vacate the leased premises upon receipt of payment.

Calleja noted that the arbitral award binds only BCDA and CJHDEVCO and not the third party investors.

“It is our desire that BCDA respects our peaceful possession and ownership until 2046,” Calleja pleaded with the CA justices.

Meanwhile, the CJH golf club with 850 investors has also asked the court to stop the BCDA from implementing its eviction notice on them.

Camp John Hay Golf Club’s lawyer Joel Bodegon told the appellate court that it was not a party in the arbitration proceedings, thus, the panel award was not binding on its client.

Bodegon said BCDA’s assertion to include third-party investors in the implementation of the decision of the arbitration panel was a clear violation of their right to due process.

“An actual possessor of a property enjoys a legal presumption of just title in his favor, which must be overcome by the party claiming otherwise. Thus, petitioner-in-intervention CJH Golf, as actual possessor of the golf course, enjoys a presumption of just title in its favor. The burden of proving otherwise is upon the respondents, who seek to evict them from the golf course, which is in the actual possession of petitioner-in-intervention CJH Golf,” Bodegon added.

“In sum, petitioner-in-intervention CJH Golf may be ejected from the property only after it had been given an opportunity to be heard conformably with the time-honored principle of due process,” he said.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Noel Tijam, chair of the CA’s special fifth division handling the Camp John Hay ownership dispute, admitted that “it might be very difficult for the court to resolve the issue.”

Tijam noted that the new problem between the CJHDEVCO and BCDA arose from the failure of the two parties to include the interest of the third-party investors in their arbitration proceedings.

“It seems as far the arbitral award it is clear that there is no more dispute. The only contention is the biggest elephant of the room you chose to ignore is here,” Tijam said.

The appeals court wrapped up its four-day hearing on the petition filed by CJHDEVCO that sought to stop BCDA from enforcing even on third-party investors the writ of execution and notice to vacate issued by Regional Trial Court of Baguio City against the Camp John Hay developer.

A ruling is expected by end of the month.