Capitol, complainant lay arguments on lot

CEBU, Philippines - Following directive from the court, the heirs of spouses Francisco Almario and Felipa Zafra and the Province of Cebu filed their respective memoranda on the civil case involving a controversial property in Barangay Lahug.

The heirs through Casiano Almario Jr. have asked the court to nullify the deed of exchange entered into by Capitol and the heirs of the late couple.

In their memorandum, Almario Jr. through lawyer Richard Bauzon said that late spouses were among the registered co-owners of Lot No. 925 covering an area of four hectares, which is situated along Gorordo Avenue in Barangay Lahug. The area was eventually subdivided into several parcels of land.

He said Lot No. 925-A with an area of 4, 741 square meters belongs to the late couple.

However, sometime in March 1953, the provincial government represented by then Governor Sergio Osmeña Jr. and the heirs of the late couple represented by Almario entered into a Deed of Exchange.

“In said Deed of Exchange, defendant (Province of Cebu) exchanged their lands described as Lot Nos. 911-B-2-C-2-C-1, 911-B-2-C-2-C-2, and 911-B-2-C-2-C-3 with lot owned by the spouses described as Lot No. 925-A,” he said.

The Deed of Exchange was subsequently approved by then President Ferdinand Marcos.

However, they reportedly learned later that the land and its title were issued and registered under the names of Jesus Velez, Carmen Velez, Eduardo Palacios, Marita Palacios, Carmelita Palacios, Eduardo Palacios Jr., and Melencio Palacios on the basis of another Deed of Exchange reportedly executed by the provincial government.

Almario said despite the fact that the late couple was the owner of Lot No. 925-A, which was transferred to the name of the defendant through a Deed of Exchange, they reportedly did not receive anything from the provincial government since the parcels of land Capitol was supposed to give them were given to the Velezes.

Because of this, Almario asked the court to deny the province’s affirmative defenses.

Meanwhile, the provincial government through lawyer Ritchie Capahi asked the court to dismiss Almario’s case because Almario reportedly has no cause of action against the province.

Capahi said that contrary to Almario’s claim, Lot No. 925-A was registered under the name of the municipality of Cebu, which is now Cebu City.

“Plaintiff alleged that Lot No. 925-A was transferred in the name of the defendant. However, said allegation is very misleading as Lot-925-A was not transferred to the name of the defendant but is actually owned and registered in the name of Municipality of Cebu now Cebu City as shown in the attached copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-6390,” the memorandum reads.

But Almario argued otherwise: “Assuming that it is true that Cebu City is called the municipality of Cebu before, it will not change the fact that plaintiffs have no transaction with Cebu City with regard to Lot No. 925-A. As clearly indicated in the Deed of Exchange, it was the defendant Province of Cebu which entered into a Deed of Exchange with the plaintiffs.”

Almario also questioned why Cebu City has not shown any interest in the case by way of filing a motion for intervention if indeed it is the true owner of the lot.  (FREEMAN)