SC junks petition to recover lands from PCGG

The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed a petition filed by a property developer to recover two properties that it claimed were forcibly donated to then-President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

In a 71-page decision promulgated in October 2022 but released in January 2024, the SC Second Division dismissed the petition of Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership (OCLP) and affirmed the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that dismissed the OCLP’s complaint for annulment/declaration of nullity of documents, deeds, and titles, and recovery of possession with preliminary injunction.

The OCLP’s complaint sought the return of a 16-hectare land and a 2.4-hectare property.

According to the OCLP, it donated the 16-hectare land to Marcos and his wife, Imelda, out of fear after an allegedly “visibly angered” Marcos threatened to “use his vast powers to harass [Ortigas] and its officers” if they would not donate the property.

According to OCLP, the Marcoses expressed interest in their property in 1968. The couple summoned Francisco Ortigas Jr., then president of the company who was asked to donate the property to them to be used as their residence, a museum for Marcos' memorabilia and for investment.

The Court said a deed of conditional sale was executed over the 16-hectare land in favor of the Maharlika Estate Corporation. Its rights and obligations were later transferred to Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation (Mid-Pasig).

The OCLP claimed that Marcos owned and controlled the Maharlika Estate and Mid-Pasig through his dummies.

Meanwhile, the court said a supplementary agreement was appended to the Deed of Sale with respect to 2.4 hectares of land, which the OCLP said was given to Marcos on the same pretext.

After the ouster of Marcos and his family in the EDSA People Power Revolution, the Maharlika Estate and Mid-Pasig surrendered the titles and possession of properties they held for Marcos to the government, including the 16-hectare and 2.4-hectare properties.

The properties were then placed under the control of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).

Due to this, the OCLP filed a letter-complaint before the PCGG to retrieve the properties. This was dismissed by the PCGG which said that it has no jurisdiction to annul the contracts with Mid-Pasig.

This led the OCLP to file complaints before the Sandiganbayan.

In March 2020, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the OCLP’s complaint due to insufficient evidence.

In upholding the Sandiganbayan’s decision, the Supreme Court also said it did not find sufficient evidence that the OCLP was coerced or intimated into selling its properties.

According to the SC, the OCLP mainly relied on the affidavit of Atty. Francisco Ortigas, then OCLP owner, and the testimony of Atty. Ignacio Ortigas, his nephew.

|“Atty. Ignacio claimed in his testimony that Atty. Francisco confided in him about the coercion and intimidation employed by Marcos,” it said.

“Here, Atty. Ignacio’s testimony as to Atty. Francisco’s statements on the Marcos spouses’ intimidation may be admitted only to establish that Atty. Francisco relayed those statements to Atty. Ignacio,” it later added.

Due to this, the Court said that Ignacio’s testimony was insufficient to establish intimidation.

“Ortigas asserts that Atty. Ignacio and the rest of the Board of Directors’ decision should be seen within the context of the Marcos regime. However, this Court has already clarified that while abuses proliferated under martial law, it is not per se a consent-vitiating phenomenon,” the SC said.

“The political climate does not automatically invalidate the transaction. For this Court to give weight to such a claim, Ortigas must prove how martial law specifically affected Ortigas, Atty. Francisco, and the rest of the Board of Directors,” it added.

The SC further said that the Board are people with great business acumen and “cannot simply be pressured into giving away two properties.”

“This Court, therefore, finds no error in the Sandiganbayan's dismissal of Ortigas's Complaint. Its assertions are not supported by clear and convincing evidence,” the decision read.—RF, GMA Integrated News