The Supreme Court has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Philippine Navy Golf Club Inc. which is contesting the decision to turn over part of its property to four retired military officers.
In a one-page resolution issued by the SC Special First Division dated 15 June, the High Court wrote:
"G.R. No. 235619 (Philippine Golf Club Inc., et al. vs Merardo C. Abaya, et al.), Acting on the petitioners' motion for consideration of the decision dated 13 July 2020 and considering that the basic issues have already been passed upon and that there is no substantial argument to warrant a modification of this Court's decision, the Court resolves to deny reconsideration with finality. No further pleadings, motions, letters, or other communication shall be entertained therein."
The resolution was signed by Librada C. Buena, Division clerk of court, and released on 13 September.
It also stated that "Let an entry of judgment, in this case, be issued immediately."
The High Court's first decision had earlier directed the Philippine Navy and the Navy Golf Club to pay rental fees of P5,000 per month to claimants Merardo Abaya and Ruben Follosco from December 1996 and Angelito Maglonzo and Elias Sta. Clara from November 1998.
The rental fees would continue until the Navy and the Golf Club have completely vacated the lots and would earn an interest of 6 percent per annum from 24 June 2015, the date of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court Branch 266's decision in favor of the military officers.
In 1965, President Diosdado Macapagal declared the disputed property part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Officer's Village to be disposed of in favor of military officers. But, in 1976, the Navy developed part of the village into a golf course.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources in 1996 and 1998 awarded lots to Abaya, Follosco, Maglonzo and Sta. Clara. They were unable to use the land because of the Navy and the Golf Club's occupation.
The SC said the property remained part of the alienable and disposable public land of the AFP Officers' Village.
It rejected the Navy's contention that a clause in Macapagal's Proclamation Number 461 excluded areas used for public or quasi-public purposes from being disposed of.
This was because the golf course did not yet exist when Macapagal issued the proclamation, and no law or proclamation formally earmarked the land for development into a golf course. It was merely developed upon the proposal of Navy Flag Officer-in-Command Admiral Ernesto Ogbinar.
The decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez said, "The exclusionary clause cannot comprehend the golf course which is inexistent at the time the proclamation was issued. There is no basis to identify whether the empty land is being 'used for public or quasi-public purposes.'"
"The exclusionary clause cannot be used to shield the land on which the golf course stands against the actual purpose for which it was allotted — the housing of the AFP officers and veterans, who meritoriously served and protected our country. Corollary, the Philippine Navy and the Golf Club cannot deprive Abaya, et al, the enjoyment of the lands awarded to them," it added.
The SC said the Navy should have questioned the DENR's award of the lots before the proper forum.
It said the validity of the titles was not covered by the scope of a case originating from an accion reinvidicatoria, or a suit to recover possession of the land as an element of ownership.
It also pointed out that Memorandum Order Number 172 only prohibited the issuance of deeds of sale but not orders of the award
In any case, Memorandum Order Number 126 in 2000 already lifted the ban on the issuance of deeds of sale.
The SC said the Navy cannot invoke the doctrine of state immunity from suit if it would "serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen."
"Moreover, the Philippine Navy fully utilized the lands for more or less 20 years to generate income in violation of Abaya, et al.'s property rights. This Court, as the staunch guardian of the citizens' rights and welfare, cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face," the SC said.