CA favors Corona wife in land row vs kin

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld with finality the ownership of the wife of former Chief Justice Renato Corona over a property in Sampaloc, Manila that became controversial during the impeachment trial in 2012.

In a two-page decision released last week, the CA’s special former 10th Division affirmed its ruling last year favoring Basa Guidote Enterprises Inc. (BGEI), a corporation owned by the family of Cristina Corona, in the property dispute with her relatives.

In the 2012 impeachment trial, Corona’s lawyers cited the sale of this property to the Manila city government to justify the presence of peso deposits under the name of the Corona couple, but which were not declared in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. The lawyers said the proceeds went to BGEI.  

The CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by her relatives Cecilia Henson-Basa, Jose Maria Basa III and Betsy Tenchavez seeking the reversal of its decision issued on Oct. 31, 2013.

Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Ramon Garcia concurred with the ruling, penned by Associate Justice Francisco Acosta.

The CA reiterated that the Manila City regional trial court (RTC) was correct in its 2009 decision granting ownership of the contested property to BGEI.

Heirs told: Surrender property

The CA also upheld the order of the lower court for heirs of Mario Basa, Cristina’s uncle, to surrender the P37.4-million property to BGEI.

The property was ordered reconveyed to BGEI by the trial court on Aug. 6, 2009 by virtue of a deed of sale dated Aug. 12, 1964 for P475,000, payable in 5 years.

The Manila RTC, in its Aug. 6, 2009 ruling, held that appellants Basa III and Henson-Basa never denied the authenticity and due execution of the deed of sale dated Aug. 12, 1964 which transferred ownership of the property to BGEI.

In upholding the lower court’s order, the CA dismissed the claim of the Basas that Cristina has no legal personality to initiate the reconveyance suit against the Basas on behalf of her mother, the late Asuncion Basa Roca.

It noted that Cristina was duly appointed attorney-in-fact of her mother with the power to institute action for and on her behalf.

“There is no quibble over the fact that Mario Basa was the owner of the property in 1954, and his ownership was evidenced by TCT No. T-33889. But as shown by the records, Mario Basa sold Lot Nos. 1-A-1 and 1-A-4 to BGEI on Aug. 12, 1964,” read the ruling penned by Associate Justice Angelita Gacutan.

In their petition before the CA, the Basas claimed that the property was never sold to BGEI because the title is in Mario’s name.

But the CA ruled that even as the title remained in the name of Mario, it cannot be considered sufficient evidence that the sale to BGEI was fake.

The CA also noted that Henson-Basa was well aware of the sale in favor of BGEI as she even affixed his signature on the deed of sale.

“Certainly, Lots 1-A-1 and 1-A-4 was no longer owned by Mario Basa at the time of his demise. As such, the properties could no longer be the subject of the supplemental settlement of estate as these are no longer part of Mario Basa’s estate.  Accordingly, Cecilia Henson-Basa cannot acquire these lots by inheritance,” it stressed.