NOV 2, 2020 6:35 PM PHT
HIGH COURT. The Supreme Court of the Philippines on June 19, 2018.
The Supreme Court ordered the Philippine Navy to turn over the property to the 4 retired military officers whom the DENR awarded the lots to in the late 90s, and to pay them at least P1.4 million plus interest in rent
The Supreme Court ruled that the property on which the Philippine Navy Golf Course sits in Fort Bonifacio is not the property of the Navy. As such, it should be turned over to 4 retired military officers whom the environment department awarded the lots to in the late 90s.
The Supreme Court First Division affirmed lower court rulings that favored former military officers Merardo Abaya, Ruben Follosco, Angelito Maglonzo, and Elias Sta Clara.
“Philippine Navy and Golf Club are liable to turn over the lots and pay rental fees,” said the First Division in a decision promulgated July 13, but released only on October 21.
The First Division modified the lower court rulings and awarded the 4 military officers rental fees amounting to P5,000 per month counted from the date the lots were awarded to them – December 1996 for Abaya and Follosco, and 1998 for Maglonzo and Sta Clara.
It amounts to at least P1.4 million plus interest.
The Supreme Court awarded a 6% interest rate per annum counted from the regional trial court ruling in 2015, until the Navy had turned over the property.
“The Philippine Navy fully utilized the lands for more or less 20 years to generate income in violation of the (retired military officers’) property rights. This Court, as the staunch guardian of the citizens’ rights and welfare, cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face,” said the Supreme Court.
No legal basis
The Navy tried to invoke former president Diosdado Macapagal’s Proclamation No. 461 in 1965, which declared parts of Fort Bonifacio as the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Officers’ Village.
A provision of the proclamation says land earmarked for public or quasi-public purposes shall not be disposed of.
Thus, the Navy said the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) should not have awarded the lots to the retired military officers.
But the Supreme Court said the Navy cannot claim that the golf course is of public or quasi-public purpose. The Navy had asserted that the golf course is needed “for public service because it serves as a security buffer and training ground for the navy.”
The Supreme Court said that because the golf course was only developed in 1976, the 1965 proclamation could not have comprehended the golf course as a land of public or quasi-public use.
“There is no basis to identify whether the empty land (on which the golf course now stands) is being used for public or quasi-public purposes. Moreover, no subsequent law or proclamation earmarked the land for the construction of the gold course,” the decision said, penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, with concurrences from Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and Associate Justices Benjamin Caguioa and Jose Reyes Jr.
The Supreme Court said the Navy cannot also claim their right to immunity from suit.
“The Constitution itself identifies the limitations to the awesome and near-limitless powers of the State. Chief among these limitations are the principles that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” the Supreme Court said. – Rappler.com
Phase 678, AFPOVAI 