ARMI brings demolition battle to SC

CEBU, Philippines - Members of the Archangels Residents Mergence Incorporated whose houses are subject of a pending writ demolition issued by the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City have sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to stop the implementation of the order.

ARMI through lawyer Benjamin Militar has asked the high tribunal to stop the RTC as well as the Court of Appeals from implementing the writ on the grounds that it has violated jurisdictional basics.

Militar, in a 114-page petition, cited at least three grounds why the demolition order should not be implemented against the ARMI members.

Militar said that the members of ARMI were never part of the case which resulted in the issuance of the writ. He added that the respondents Court of Appeals; RTC Judge Olegario Sarmiento; Atty. Chevin Vasquez, Branch 9 clerk of court; Sheriff Elcid Caballes; Register of Deeds of Cebu City and private respondent Mariano Godinez did not give them due process.

The petitioner said it would be a great prejudice if its members will be included in the demolition considering that they have never participated during the litigation of the case before.

They claimed to be builders in good faith because they had the permission of the national government when they built their houses.

“Petitioner therefore has an interest in upholding the ownership of the Republic because under RA 7279 known as Urban Housing Development Act as well as in RA 10023 known as Residential Free Patents Act, they are given the opportunity to acquire the lots where they have built their family homes and where they have retired,” the petition reads.

ARMI asked the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction.

The petitioner has expressed willingness to put up the necessary bond to cover any damages.

The petition however was dismissed by lawyer Roberto Palmares, counsel for private respondent Godinez, saying that the issues raised by the petitioner were already tackled in the lower court.  (FREEMAN)

Show comments