Mga GARCIA sa Capitol, mga hawod na kaayo.

[giddyboy]

---

i thought this thread was all about how the garcia's hande the capitol y drag the Osmeña's here just to justify what the Garcia's activities are proper?...

it's not a crime to compare someone w/ another one. just because this thread is all about the Garcias, doesn't mean we cannot mention anymore also the Osmenas into their case. Comparative analyses and opinion, kung sa uban pa.

of course, how can u argue on an act of one that somebody despises but actually condones the same act of another. so kinanglan gyud i brought up nimo ang other.

para nako dli na jud ko mo butar ana mga Garcia nga anak mas ok to ilang amahan kay dli "show off" kalma lang... asta pud nang mga ka liwat ni john Osmeña....

depende raman gud na unsaon pag project oneself as a politician. maybe u look at it as some kinda "show off" but some would see it as assertiveness and next gen style (non-traditional). Maybe coz the fact that most Pinoys still think males are superior than women, these women leaders compensate it by showing and proving they are capable as men do (and really if they actually aren't...hehe)

sakto jud na c LytSlpr maayong pakungon ilang mga ulo kanang tulo ka mga leader.... na unsa na kaha to ilang kaso? na hilom naman pud... hala kanang mga kaliwat ni Garcia dha, depensai jud na ninyo...yaw mo panggamit ug lain pangan para lang ma justify sakto ilang gibuhat...

if u r mentioning about Radazas and the Ouanos, the Garcias are not really close to them on a personal level. it just happened that they are on the same partidos of the political spectrum. if u remember the Abineses, this family was once called the warlords of the Cebu south, but because the Garcias had the same party affiliations w/ them, wa clay mahims but to support them as member of a party.

about provincial road, by the name it self provencial, so ang mo finance ana ang province, ka hilas gud nila dli daw cla ang mo finance ana nya pag suroy namo sa south b4 dagko ilang dagway didto na "through the efforts of" kuyog pa sa presidenti....

u may just be confused between "provincial roads" and "national roads". the terms themselves already explain it all. the main hi-ways going south and north are declared as national roads. National roads are funded by the national gov't so it will not be a surprise when a President visits a just-finished-national-project to inaugurate it or something like that.

priority sa Governor ang municipalities ug syudad out side sa cebu city lapu2x city ug mandaue, kay kaning 3 ka mga syudad maka barog ni bisag wlay tabang from governors office.... dli kay mag apil2x pa sa business anang SRP, ngano mo palit man cyag yuta dha? iyang ipang hatag sa mga tawo?

If Capitol sees an opportunity investing in SRP that will fall within the bounds of the law, they will go for it. but coz Japan insisted to Tomas that any SRP investments have to create jobs, that i think is the reason Capitol would possibly back out. to add, JVSC just declared today on mass motion that Capitol cannot invest in SRP coz it's not a private entity, to which the Province will file a motion for reconsideration.

nag libog sad ko kung unsay pagsabot ani ni Gwen sa iyang position pareha atong mga squater sa yuta sa province, ila man jud i demolished na louy kaayo tawn ang mga residenti, the least expected to happen ang government pa mo pa evict ninyo sa inyong gipuy an.. pwerting hangyo sa syudad sa sugbo na unta i trade lang an yuta para mga tawo dli magka lisod....baw lang na unsa nato... naa cyay kalagot sa mayor apil2x man ang mga tawo....

Capitol is not a social welfare agency. Squatters are squatters. Lage maluoy ta pero reality is, squatting is illegal. Not to mention naay "professional" squatters nga mag make money out of the lot they don't own by renting it out to other people. besides, demolition orders are based on and follows the law.

What the gov't can do only is to provide humanitarian aid like looking for relocation sites sa katong deserving ra sab like kad2 dugay najud dha gapuyo ug nangapo nlng.

actually, dealing w/ squatters is always a dilemma. on one side, u have to look at the legal aspect. the gov't has to have teeth in implementing anti-squatting laws so as not to encourage more squatters. but on the other side, u will also look at the humanitarian aspect. the gov't has to provide relocation to deserving ones and perhaps give livelihood projects.

it doesn't mean ky abi gusto unta i-trade ni Tomas ang lots dili na niya ipa evict ang mga squatters if needed...ky actually kung nadayon pa unta toh, the burden and dilemma will be on Cebu City na.

[LytSlpr]

squatting of course is illegal but what can you say about influence peddling for technical land grabbing, case in point lahug airport?

[giddyboy]

squatting of course is illegal but what can you say about influence peddling for technical land grabbing, case in point lahug airport?

i don't know what Lahug airport "technical land grabbing" or "influence peddling" you are talking about. if you even happen to try google these terms u mentioned and try to connect it to the old lahug airport, you can't find anything that even resembles those terms or something that even raises a red flag.

let's get back to the history. if u r familiar w/ the Virginia Chiongbian et al complaint they filed vs Republic of Phils, the SC jurisprudence in it said it all. here's the link:

Mactan-Cebu Innternational Airport Authority vs CA : 139495 : November 27, 2000 : J. Reyes : Third Division

It was dismissed fairly and squarely in favor of RP. it showed that RP was exercising EMINENT DOMAIN w/ the Lahug airport. so where's the technical land-grabbing or influence peddling ana?

if u think exercising eminent domain is tantamount to technical land-grabbing, think again. otherwise, u cannot even start making the Ban-Tal flyover sidestreet widening w/o it. or even make new roads or widen roads for that matter.

eminent domain by wiki definition is:

"the power of the nation or a sovereign state to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owner’s consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation." It is used interchangeably with "expropriation."

And as we all already know, Cebu Property Ventures and Development Corp. is a partnership with Ayala- backed Cebu Holdings Inc. founded in 1990 during the term of governor Emilio “Lito” Osmeña.

It now developed the 24-hectare former Lahug airport formerly owned by the Province into another business district to complement the CBP. Now called Asiatown IT Park, it is the first Peza-accredited information technology park in the Visayas and Mindanao area.

(and all the critics of this development could only drool w/ envy...) suya rana pre.

[xxxerorrxxx]

pamusilon kunon na cla
peace

[LytSlpr]

i don't know what Lahug airport "technical land grabbing" or "influence peddling" you are talking about. if you even happen to try google these terms u mentioned and try to connect it to the old lahug airport, you can't find anything that even resembles those terms or something that even raises a red flag.

let's get back to the history. if u r familiar w/ the Virginia Chiongbian et al complaint they filed vs Republic of Phils, the SC jurisprudence in it said it all. here's the link:

Mactan-Cebu Innternational Airport Authority vs CA : 139495 : November 27, 2000 : J. Reyes : Third Division

It was dismissed fairly and squarely in favor of RP. it showed that RP was exercising EMINENT DOMAIN w/ the Lahug airport. so where's the technical land-grabbing or influence peddling ana?

if u think exercising eminent domain is tantamount to technical land-grabbing, think again. otherwise, u cannot even start making the Ban-Tal flyover sidestreet widening w/o it. or even make new roads or widen roads for that matter.

eminent domain by wiki definition is:

"the power of the nation or a sovereign state to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owner’s consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation." It is used interchangeably with "expropriation."

And as we all already know, Cebu Property Ventures and Development Corp. is a partnership with Ayala- backed Cebu Holdings Inc. founded in 1990 during the term of governor Emilio “Lito” Osmeña.

It now developed the 24-hectare former Lahug airport formerly owned by the Province into another business district to complement the CBP. Now called Asiatown IT Park, it is the first Peza-accredited information technology park in the Visayas and Mindanao area.

(and all the critics of this development could only drool w/ envy...) suya rana pre.

I have no knowledge on how Club Filipino was acquired before it was sold to the Ayalas and i don't even need to read your link about that particular case. again, TECHNICAL LAND GRABBING using their influence.

FACT:
when the lots in the former Lahug airport were expropriated, it was AGREED IN WRITING, if I remember right, there was an annotation on the titles, that the lots will be returned to the original owners for the original compensation price when the lots will no longer be used as an airport or for public use. KLARO KAAYO TO! a lot of these cases won in the RTC, CA and suddenly lost in SC. Guess kinsa ang nangusog didto sa SC? I bet you know who.

here's the big question, ARE THE LOTS STILL USED AS AN AIRPORT OR FOR PUBLIC USE FOR THAT MATTER?

how do you explain landowners who are exactly in the same situation but won their cases all the way up to the SC? if i know better, it's because these landowners are forced to cut a deal with these influence peddlers/extortionists, just to get back their land that was rightfully theirs in the first place.

So you see, daghan TRAMPAS sa atong justice system.

secondly, is the government already in the real estate business of selling expropriated lots to private entities? kung mao na, maayo pa mobalik na lang ta sa panahon ni Marcos. the Garcias saw a legal technicality there which can be used and manipulated specially with people who have deep contacts in the justice system and they grabbed it.

eminent domain? that is all bull crap! you and i were not born just yesterday.

di na suya pre, it's about justice. that's why they are hypocrites. projecting that they are so righteous pero daghan di'ay to ug shenanigans.

at least si tomas, nag reclaim ug iyahang yuta, WALA MANGILOG ug yuta sa uban.

[iamnobody]

Hate nako siya kay naka contribute sya sa traffic diri sa siyudad. How you ask? kay kanang mga taga probinsya manglugsong kay gibugaton sa investments sa province naa man diri Metro Cebu ug surrounding Cities. Sheyt nalang.

[giddyboy]

I have no knowledge on how Club Filipino was acquired before it was sold to the Ayalas and i don't even need to read your link about that particular case. again, TECHNICAL LAND GRABBING using their influence.

i don't want to call that influence peddling. kung ikaw governor, asa man diay ka dapig? of course sa Republic of the Phils. vs squatters.

do u even have the idea who were the professional land grabbing and squatting syndicates in that area before and up to now? clearly it is not the Cebu Province...no need to elaborate.

FACT:
when the lots in the former Lahug airport were expropriated, it was AGREED IN WRITING, if I remember right, there was an annotation on the titles, that the lots will be returned to the original owners for the original compensation price when the lots will no longer be used as an airport or for public use. KLARO KAAYO TO! a lot of these cases won in the RTC, CA and suddenly lost in SC. Guess kinsa ang nangusog didto sa SC? I bet you know who.

here's the big question, ARE THE LOTS STILL USED AS AN AIRPORT OR FOR PUBLIC USE FOR THAT MATTER?

how do you explain landowners who are exactly in the same situation but won their cases all the way up to the SC? if i know better, it's because these landowners are forced to cut a deal with these influence peddlers/extortionists, just to get back their land that was rightfully theirs in the first place.

So you see, daghan TRAMPAS sa atong justice system.

i think u didn't even bother to read the SC jurisprudence in detail. your facts are not complete, that's why u gave a skewed opinion on the matter. to enlighten, here's a summary detail:

"on Dec 29, 1961, judgment was rendered in the expropriation case in favor of RP which was made to pay Virginia Chiongbian the amt of P34,415.00 for Lot 941, with legal interest computed from Nov 16, 1947, the date when the govt begun using it. Virginia Chiongbian did not appeal therefrom.

Thereafter, absolute title to Lot 941 was transferred to the RP.

Then, in 1990, Rep Act No. 6958 was passed by Congress creating the MCIAA to which the assets of the Lahug Airport was transferred. Lot was then transferred in the name of MCIAA.

On Jul 24, 1995, V. Chiongbian filed a complaint for reconveyance w/ the RTC of Cebu, alleging, that sometime in 1949, the Nat'l Airport Corp (NAC) ventured to expand the Lahug Airport. As a consequence, it sought to acquire by expropriation or negotiated sale several parcels of lands adjoining the Lahug Airport, one of which was Lot 941 owned by V. Chiongbian. Since she & other landowners could not agree with the NAC’s offer for the compensation of their lands, a suit for eminent domain was instituted on April 16, 1952, before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch III), against forty-five (45) landowners, including V. Chiongbian, entitled “RP vs. Damian Ouano, et al.”It was finally decided on Dec 29, 1961 in favor of the RP...

However, no expansion of the Lahug Airport was undertaken by MCIAA and its predecessors-in-interest. In fact, when MCIAA was opened for commercial flights, the Lahug Airport was closed at the end of 1991 and all its airport activities were undertaken at and transferred to the MCIAA. Thus, the purpose for which Lot 941 was taken ceased to exist.

On June 3, 1997, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondent V. Chiongbian.

MCIAA appealed the decision to the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision. Motion for Reconsideration was denied hence this petition where MCIAA raises the following grounds in support of its petition.

(simply put, CA erred in upholding the RTC ruling)

The judgment rendered therein was unconditional and did not contain a stipulation that ownership thereof would revert to CHIONGBIAN nor did it give CHIONGBIAN the right to repurchase the same in the event the lot was no longer used for the purpose it was expropriated. Moreover, CHIONGBIAN’s claim that there was a repurchase agreement is not supported by documentary evidence. The mere fact that twenty six (26) other landowners repurchased their property located at the aforementioned Lahug airport is of no consequence considering that said landowners were able to secure a rider in their contracts entitling them to repurchase their property.

We come now to the substantive aspects of the case wherein the issue to be resolved is whether the abandonment of the public use for which Lot No. 941 was expropriated entitles CHIONGBIAN to reacquire it.

When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned, or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner.

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the expropriation of Lots Nos. 75, 76, 89, 90, 91, 105, 106, 107, 108, 104, 921-A, 88, 93, 913-B, 72, 77, 916, 777-A, 918, 919, 920, 764-A, 988, 744-A, 745-A, 746, 747, 752-A, 263-A, 941, 942, 740-A, 743, 985, 956, 976-A, 984, 989-A; and 947, including in the Lahug Airport, Cebu City, justified and in lawful exercise of the right of eminent domain

ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the CA is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of V.Chiongbian against MCIAA for reconveyance of Lot No. 941 is DISMISSED."

AND THAT IS WHAT U CALL BULLCRAP?!?

secondly, is the government already in the real estate business of selling expropriated lots to private entities? kung mao na, maayo pa mobalik na lang ta sa panahon ni Marcos. the Garcias saw a legal technicality there which can be used and manipulated specially with people who have deep contacts in the justice system and they grabbed it.

and do u even know that CPVDC is a joint venture w/ the Province and the Ayalas and was initiated by former guv Lito O? get ur facts straight.

eminent domain? that is all bull crap! you and i were not born just yesterday.

u say bullcrap ang eminent domain policy. and mind u, it is stated in our constitution. so if we follow ur logic, bullcrap sab diay ang atong constitution.

di na suya pre, it's about justice. that's why they are hypocrites. projecting that they are so righteous pero daghan di'ay to ug shenanigans.

do u even know who was hypocrite during that time? it was V. Chiongbian. and mind u, justice was served fairly and squarely. nya hawod ang Capitol (or even Gwen) diay ana dapita? don't even think I'm defending Gwen. I'm actually defending the SC decision.

if it's not suya, it surely could only be skewed understanding of facts.

at least si tomas, nag reclaim ug iyahang yuta, WALA MANGILOG ug yuta sa uban.

an assumption only backed up w/ skewed facts.

hahaha. what about the Fuente Osmena? what about the old Larsian sauna? what about the Cebu Zoo? LOLs

as an example:

the zoo property is part of Lot No. 1298 with an area of 222,110 sqm.

The province donated lot No. 1298 and an adjacent lot No. 1303 with an area of 3,160 square-meter to the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) in 1969.

But the disputed area was excluded from the deed of donation since it was land reserved as a relocation site for the Cebu City Zoo which at that time was to be moved out of its location in the Fort San Pedro.

There was no donation of the site to the Cebu City Zoo or the City of Cebu.

Since the exclusion of the property for the zoo was a “gratuitous act” of Cebu province it could be “unilaterally withdrawn” by the Province of Cebu which may exercise its rights as owner.

But since Tomas has insisted that the zoo is owned by Cebu City, he dared the Province to sue him in court.

now who do u think is ang MANGINGILOG ug yuta sa uban? kinsa may feeling hawod rn beh? LOLs

[babygrace_pilapil]

best gov jud c gwen...

[LytSlpr]

i don't want to call that influence peddling. kung ikaw governor, asa man diay ka dapig? of course sa Republic of the Phils. vs squatters.

do u even have the idea who were the professional land grabbing and squatting syndicates in that area before and up to now? clearly it is not the Cebu Province...no need to elaborate.



i think u didn't even bother to read the SC jurisprudence in detail. your facts are not complete, that's why u gave a skewed opinion on the matter. to enlighten, here's a summary detail:

"on Dec 29, 1961, judgment was rendered in the expropriation case in favor of RP which was made to pay Virginia Chiongbian the amt of P34,415.00 for Lot 941, with legal interest computed from Nov 16, 1947, the date when the govt begun using it. Virginia Chiongbian did not appeal therefrom.

Thereafter, absolute title to Lot 941 was transferred to the RP.

Then, in 1990, Rep Act No. 6958 was passed by Congress creating the MCIAA to which the assets of the Lahug Airport was transferred. Lot was then transferred in the name of MCIAA.

On Jul 24, 1995, V. Chiongbian filed a complaint for reconveyance w/ the RTC of Cebu, alleging, that sometime in 1949, the Nat'l Airport Corp (NAC) ventured to expand the Lahug Airport. As a consequence, it sought to acquire by expropriation or negotiated sale several parcels of lands adjoining the Lahug Airport, one of which was Lot 941 owned by V. Chiongbian. Since she & other landowners could not agree with the NAC’s offer for the compensation of their lands, a suit for eminent domain was instituted on April 16, 1952, before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch III), against forty-five (45) landowners, including V. Chiongbian, entitled “RP vs. Damian Ouano, et al.”It was finally decided on Dec 29, 1961 in favor of the RP...

However, no expansion of the Lahug Airport was undertaken by MCIAA and its predecessors-in-interest. In fact, when MCIAA was opened for commercial flights, the Lahug Airport was closed at the end of 1991 and all its airport activities were undertaken at and transferred to the MCIAA. Thus, the purpose for which Lot 941 was taken ceased to exist.

On June 3, 1997, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondent V. Chiongbian.

MCIAA appealed the decision to the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision. Motion for Reconsideration was denied hence this petition where MCIAA raises the following grounds in support of its petition.

(simply put, CA erred in upholding the RTC ruling)

The judgment rendered therein was unconditional and did not contain a stipulation that ownership thereof would revert to CHIONGBIAN nor did it give CHIONGBIAN the right to repurchase the same in the event the lot was no longer used for the purpose it was expropriated. Moreover, CHIONGBIAN’s claim that there was a repurchase agreement is not supported by documentary evidence. The mere fact that twenty six (26) other landowners repurchased their property located at the aforementioned Lahug airport is of no consequence considering that said landowners were able to secure a rider in their contracts entitling them to repurchase their property.

We come now to the substantive aspects of the case wherein the issue to be resolved is whether the abandonment of the public use for which Lot No. 941 was expropriated entitles CHIONGBIAN to reacquire it.

When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned, or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner.

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the expropriation of Lots Nos. 75, 76, 89, 90, 91, 105, 106, 107, 108, 104, 921-A, 88, 93, 913-B, 72, 77, 916, 777-A, 918, 919, 920, 764-A, 988, 744-A, 745-A, 746, 747, 752-A, 263-A, 941, 942, 740-A, 743, 985, 956, 976-A, 984, 989-A; and 947, including in the Lahug Airport, Cebu City, justified and in lawful exercise of the right of eminent domain

ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the CA is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of V.Chiongbian against MCIAA for reconveyance of Lot No. 941 is DISMISSED."

AND THAT IS WHAT U CALL BULLCRAP?!?



and do u even know that CPVDC is a joint venture w/ the Province and the Ayalas and was initiated by former guv Lito O? get ur facts straight.



u say bullcrap ang eminent domain policy. and mind u, it is stated in our constitution. so if we follow ur logic, bullcrap sab diay ang atong constitution.



do u even know who was hypocrite during that time? it was V. Chiongbian. and mind u, justice was served fairly and squarely. nya hawod ang Capitol (or even Gwen) diay ana dapita? don't even think I'm defending Gwen. I'm actually defending the SC decision.

if it's not suya, it surely could only be skewed understanding of facts.



an assumption only backed up w/ skewed facts.

hahaha. what about the Fuente Osmena? what about the old Larsian sauna? what about the Cebu Zoo? LOLs

as an example:

the zoo property is part of Lot No. 1298 with an area of 222,110 sqm.

The province donated lot No. 1298 and an adjacent lot No. 1303 with an area of 3,160 square-meter to the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) in 1969.

But the disputed area was excluded from the deed of donation since it was land reserved as a relocation site for the Cebu City Zoo which at that time was to be moved out of its location in the Fort San Pedro.

There was no donation of the site to the Cebu City Zoo or the City of Cebu.

Since the exclusion of the property for the zoo was a “gratuitous act” of Cebu province it could be “unilaterally withdrawn” by the Province of Cebu which may exercise its rights as owner.

But since Tomas has insisted that the zoo is owned by Cebu City, he dared the Province to sue him in court.

now who do u think is ang MANGINGILOG ug yuta sa uban? kinsa may feeling hawod rn beh? LOLs

AGAIN, the constitution is not bull crap, the courts fueled by greed influenced by some entities are. the constitution is only as as good as these hoodlums in robes want them to be.

I don't have the exact details about the the former club filipino or cebu zoo or whatever and I am not interested in discussing that coz I might "skew" the facts.

All I know is this, when the government expropriated those lots it SHOULD have been returned to the original owners for the price it was expropriated for regardless if there was an annotation on the title or not simply because it is the right thing to do. It's should have been that simple! Now that they sold it or have a JV arrangement or whatever with the Ayalas, how in all fairness could they ethically justify eminent domain? Of course, they have their legal luminaries to make BS sound like poetic justice. But hey, life and the law is unfair in that side of the world.

Explain to me like a 5 year old how the old Lahug Airport is now owned or enjoyed (if it is a JV) by OTHER private entities just by citing eminent domain in ANY court?

Would it be right to say that anybody in government can just expropriate a private lot in the guise of general public benefit invoking eminent domain and later on sell or cut a JV with another private entity? how fair and convenient!

What's the difference between that tactic and money laundering?

I'll give you a hypothetical example, what if the roadside lot owners in the BanTal area will be expropriated (just like in V. Rama before) and for some wild reason a train or expressway will be built say 50 years from now and the old road doesn't need to be that wide anymore. What SHOULD the government do, return it to the heirs of the original owners or gamitan na sad ug technicality nga eminent domain in the interest of the government (official) not necessarily the general public and sell it to the ayala's, gokongwei's or sy's?

Pardon me, I am not a legal genius but I don't think that is how our constitution works or should work for that matter. Pero kung naa ka sa position unya naa kay contact lawom na contact sa justice system, ang palusot or ilad pwede himuon nga nindot paminawon ug mura'g insakto.

In the Philippines, justice is blind only to the poor or people without connections.

[PGM_301]

Politics is always crap...it always has been,and it always will be...Frustrating,but it is the truth...Politics is crap,politicians are even crappier...good thing we left the country...