THE Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has suffered another setback in its quest to gain full control over the disputed 18.5-hectare “Payanig sa Pasig” property after the Pasig City court junked its petition to eject 10 commercial establishments for failure to pay rental dues.
The Pasig Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the Commission’s petition after finding lack of merit and failure to support its claim of ownership on the said property.
The PCGG filed an ejectment case against 10 private business owners that were leasing portions of the surrendered properties and paying rent to Blemp Commercial, a firm that is associated with former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson.
Blemp is also claiming ownership of the Payanig property, arguing that they acquired it even before it was surrendered to the PCGG by Jose Campos, known crony of the late strongman, Ferdinand Marcos, as part of his ill-gotten wealth.
Campos, who had been fronting for Marcos, surrendered the said property in exchange from immunity from suit after the former President was ousted in what is now known as the People Power Revolution in 1986.
The PCGG said it would appeal the decision claiming that the court failed to appreciate the certificate from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) that strengthened the government’s claim on Payanig against that of Singson’s camp which has taken possession of nearly the entire lot.
The PCGG claimed that the LRA certificate supports the authenticity of the original owner’s copy of Transfer Certificate Title No. 469702 issued by the Pasig Registry of Deeds and held by the Commission.
Singson’s camp has also presented a copy of the land title which covers 2.48 hectares and 16 hectares in support of his claim of ownership of the said property.
Court records, on the other hand, showed that the wealthy Ortigas clan through its Ortigas and Company Limited Partnerships (OCLP) is also reclaiming the 18.5- hectare property, stressing that OCLP remains the rightful owner of the property.
They said Campos’ surrender of the said property was void since he was not the owner.