Mga GARCIA sa Capitol, mga hawod na kaayo.

[giddyboy]

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 know that the courts are not 100% clean. but if we are talking about the SC jurisprudence on the old Lahug airport, any lawyer could say it's fair and square.

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.

yeah, me too.

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.

it's not always that way.

as already explained earlier: "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."

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!

read my highlighted post above...

actually, ma uli man unta ang lot kung naay stipulation sa expropriation nga conditionality in case di na gamiton for public use or the original intention. sumala pa sa ubang tag-iya sa lots in the old Lahug airport, nka repurchase man cla, pero except lang sa case kang V. Chiongbian.

to give more detailed explanation:

"Finally, CHIONGBIAN cannot invoke the modified judgment of the Court of Appeals in the case of Republic of the Phils vs. Escaño, et. al. where her co-defendants, Mamerto Escaño, Inc., Milagros Urgello and Maria Atega Vda. De Deen entered into separate and distinct compromise agreements with the Republic of the Philippines wherein they agreed to sell their land subject of the expropriation proceedings to the latter subject to the resolutory condition that in the event the Republic of the Philippines no longer uses said property as an airport, title and ownership of said property shall revert to its respective owners upon reimbursement of the price paid therefor without interest. MCIAA correctly points out that since CHIONGBIAN did not appeal the judgment of expropriation in Civil Case No. R-1881 and was not a party to the appeal of her co-defendants, the judgment therein cannot redound to her benefit. And even assuming that CHIONGBIAN was a party to the appeal, she was not a party to the compromise agreements entered into by her co-defendants. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Essentially, it is a contract perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. A judicial compromise has the force of law and is conclusive between the parties and it is not valid and binding on a party who did not sign the same. Since CHIONGBIAN was not a party to the compromise agreements, she cannot legally invoke the same.

let's note that while the repurchase by Chiongbian was dismissed, the gov't was still made to pay her the amt she deserved. pero kabaw ka, namintaha man gud pud cya sauna. gusto cya mka kwarta to which she doesn't deserve at all. gusto niya mabayran cya sa current value amounting to millions of pesos during that time w/c the courts found unjustifiable. call that greed also.

what happened to the old Lahug airport did not only happen during the term of Gwen or Pablo. It happened even before Lito O. The lots were expropriated and transferred to RP, then to MCIAA, then to JPDVC...

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

there's nothing of this topic to even speak of money laundering. do u even know what money laundering is?

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?

unya nka kita na ba diay kag road nga gi widen unya later on gipagamay ug balik sa original? i don't think so. LOLs

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.

i know, but this SC jurisprudence doesn't need a legal genius to understand it. i'm not even a lawyer.

but let's limit ourselves to this old Lahug airport topic. i can't seem to see any palusot for this matter. otherwise, nahimo na unta ni ug controversy or scandal and all over the news or even the internet. wa man lage.

all we get nowadays are just gossips and rumors based on half-truths. nahug rag pang daut bah. could be coming from the CHiongbians themselves. or perhaps from the Osmenas who are drooling over the IT Asiatown w/ envy.

let's also remember that sometime ago, Brgy Luz and Brgy Lahug were fighting over the jurisdiction of the IT park. The former is Tomas' political ally, while the latter is not.

[Yuri]

best gov jud c gwen...

pagsure dha oissst.....
kining mga garcias
pareha ra ni sila ouano, radaza ug nerissa mga k....... get my point.....

[giddyboy]

^^^bati gyud ang panglantaw sa uban aning mga Garcia ky they are made to see it that way by unseen hands. the fact that they are not made by "king makers" but by their own hardwork, power and influence. i'm talking about those influential private entities that can either make or unmake a gov't leader. and spread power and influence too...and we here in Cebu has lots of them. talk about the Chiongbians, the Gaisanos, etc...if u r placed there on top by any of these elites like some sort of in exchange of favors, crossing any one of them would spell the end of your political career.

not to mention the Osmena factor.

[LytSlpr]

actually, ma uli man unta ang lot kung naay stipulation sa expropriation nga conditionality in case di na gamiton for public use or the original intention. sumala pa sa ubang tag-iya sa lots in the old Lahug airport, nka repurchase man cla, pero except lang sa case kang V. Chiongbian.

let's note that while the repurchase by Chiongbian was dismissed, the gov't was still made to pay her the amt she deserved. pero kabaw ka, namintaha man gud pud cya sauna. gusto cya mka kwarta to which she doesn't deserve at all. gusto niya mabayran cya sa current value amounting to millions of pesos during that time w/c the courts found unjustifiable. call that greed also.

namintaha? greed?

there are only 2 things that she probably wanted, return her lot or let the government pay her the current value of the lot. either way, wala'y natuman. ngano kaha?

what happened to the old Lahug airport did not only happen during the term of Gwen or Pablo. It happened even before Lito O. The lots were expropriated and transferred to RP, then to MCIAA, then to JPDVC...

but i believe the transaction happened during their time.

there's nothing of this topic to even speak of money laundering. do u even know what money laundering is?

i was trying to connect the logic. expropriate the property, kunohay gamiton for public use, then sell it to a private entity for a higher price. see the connection now?

unya nka kita na ba diay kag road nga gi widen unya later on gipagamay ug balik sa original? i don't think so. LOLsed a legal genius to understand it. i'm not even a lawyer.

keyword, hypothetical. secondly, it may be a remote possibility but that is not impossible. think bigger and further ahead.

but let's limit ourselves to this old Lahug airport topic. i can't seem to see any palusot for this matter. otherwise, nahimo na unta ni ug controversy or scandal and all over the news or even the internet. wa man lage.

not every issue ends up in media. let's just say this kind of issue considering the entities involved, do not want to engage in media mudslinging.


my last question to you is, nganong wa man gi uli ang lot? simple ra gyud kaayo na but the SC just wants to get paid so, way nahimo ang original owner.


OT: can you categorically say that your governor did not receive any kickback from the building of that ugly convention center despite all the irregularities in each step of the construction and the overpriced lamp posts? a simple yes or no will do.

[realfussion]

Basta if not for the CCIC and asean convention issue dli unta ma usab akong pang lantaw ani ni Gwen i voted for her against sa iyang mga kontra, and besides kinsa man pud mapili aside niya ato na time? wla, so CYA NALANG KAY WAY LAIN.... dli jud ko mo too na wa cyay kalabotan ug n ahibaw an sa mysteryosong lamp post cya... naa pa koy daghan kwarta ako man mangunay ug invistigate ana bah... mo hire kog isa ka batallion abogado para lang mauli tong kwarta ilang gi kawkaw....

isa sad naka parat sa balaod noh idja2x kaayo if provincial road province ra jud mo gasto ana way paki ang mga syudad or LGU naa sa tungod if National Road pud abi national man literally dli lang pud mang hilabot ang province ana? abi naa man sa balaod sakto na diay na? patuyang lang jud mo mura jud clag taga asa nga mga idjahon kaayog batasan...

PS wako nag look down ni gwen abi babaye cya..besides dli raman pud c gwen issue dri, apil man yang mga igsoon....so whats the big deal hisgot2x ug gender....

[giddyboy]

namintaha? greed?

there are only 2 things that she probably wanted, return her lot or let the government pay her the current value of the lot. either way, wala'y natuman. ngano kaha?

actually, it's both she wanted but not at the same time. there is a timeline of each. the latter want is the result of the former's dismissal. but like u said, walay natuman. why?

she wanted to repurchase the lot for 34K only (the same amt the lot valuation was decades ago). it was found unjustifiable due to the fact the property is now worth several hundreds of millions of pesos due to the improvements introduced by MCIAA. that was the namintaha part i was mentioning (sayop diay ko pag una, pero mao ra gihapon, namintaha...)

but since it was found legally impossible for her to repurchase the lot, finally, the gov't paid her, but not the current value (unjustifiable) but the justifiable 34K w/ legal interest from 1947. (i don't know how to compute that!)

now as to the return of the lot to her, yes, na return man but only temporarily by the RTC ruling. then MCIAA filed an appeal to which it was finally found out that the RTC and CA ruling erred in their judgments. it was finally decided in favor of RP, BUT was made to pay Chiongbian the amt of P34,415.00, with legal interest from November 16, 1947 until fully paid.

but i believe the transaction happened during their time.

ang transaction, during Gwen or Pablo's time diay ang 1947 to 1961? pag chure oi! do u even know who was our vice pres and later on president during those times? c Sergio Osmena...and do u even know kinsa pud ang mga bigshot political players during those times? CHIONGBIANS...the Garcias were still out of the picture then.

so don't ever make the mistake that the transaction (expropriation) happened during their (Garcia's) time. it actually happened during Sergio Osmena's time, where Cebu was first coined as Osmena country...

AFAIK, the Lahug airport expropriation was already a done deal pag 1961. let me repeat: DONE DEAL na. From 1947 to 1961, ang yuta napalit ni Chiongbian from Faborada, then napalit sa RP from Chiongbian, then na transfer from RP to MCIAA.

It was only then in 1995 that Chiongbian filed a complaint vs MCIAA for reconveyance but got dismissed in RP's favor.

if u r talking about the transfer of the Lahug airport lot from MCIAA to CPVDC, then to the Ayalas, well, that's entirely another story.

i was trying to connect the logic. expropriate the property, kunohay gamiton for public use, then sell it to a private entity for a higher price. see the connection now?

don't ever use the word "kunohay gamiton". GIGAMIT GYUD. mao btaw gitawag na sauna ug LAHUG AIRPORT and not some other name. kbaw ba ka kanusa gyud na officially closed ang Lahug airport? 1991.

what u mean tingali is wa na gamita as an airport. op kors, ky gibalhin naman sa Mactan. and like i said before, it is not always the case nga iuli ang expropriated property in case di na gamiton. kinanglan stipulated gyud na sa transaction w/ conditionality. fortunately for the other former lot owners, ilang na repurchase ky naa may conditionality ang ilang transaction before. unfortunately for Chiongbian, not.

not every issue ends up in media. let's just say this kind of issue considering the entities involved, do not want to engage in media mudslinging.

let's put it this way instead: there is really no legal issue anymore, that's why. LOLs

my last question to you is, nganong wa man gi uli ang lot? simple ra gyud kaayo na but the SC just wants to get paid so, way nahimo ang original owner.

answer: ky di naman pwede iuli. the SC jurisprudence said it all. to explain why even in simple terms is to explain almost all the details of the case.

OT: can you categorically say that your governor did not receive any kickback from the building of that ugly convention center despite all the irregularities in each step of the construction and the overpriced lamp posts? a simple yes or no will do.

i just don't know. i don't have the facts to say yes or no. just maybe, maybe not. besides, i don't work for the governor nor even a 4th degree relative of hers. LOLs

Just got to me thinking...are u a close relative of V. Chiongbian? why prefer to defend her instead of the Republic of the Phils. (the people)? duda man lang sab ta...

[aspire5602]

i don't like gwen.... ug kana pud taga gsis na garcia, ug kanang capitol consultant na garcia... imo

[emb_ventures]

kuyawa ani ila mga post oi, magsakit man sad akong dughan ani......

[realfussion]

^^ y man mag sakit? nindot ni brain storming dli heart storming.....

[LytSlpr]

actually, it's both she wanted but not at the same time. there is a timeline of each. the latter want is the result of the former's dismissal. but like u said, walay natuman. why?

she wanted to repurchase the lot for 34K only (the same amt the lot valuation was decades ago). it was found unjustifiable due to the fact the property is now worth several hundreds of millions of pesos due to the improvements introduced by MCIAA. that was the namintaha part i was mentioning (sayop diay ko pag una, pero mao ra gihapon, namintaha...)

but since it was found legally impossible for her to repurchase the lot, finally, the gov't paid her, but not the current value (unjustifiable) but the justifiable 34K w/ legal interest from 1947. (i don't know how to compute that!)

now as to the return of the lot to her, yes, na return man but only temporarily by the RTC ruling. then MCIAA filed an appeal to which it was finally found out that the RTC and CA ruling erred in their judgments. it was finally decided in favor of RP, BUT was made to pay Chiongbian the amt of P34,415.00, with legal interest from November 16, 1947 until fully paid.

Again, the SC can say anything or cite any part of the constitution to make it seem fair but the fact that the lot was not returned and was merely paid 34K plus interest doesn't that raise a question? Do you honestly think that is fair? oh come on?!

ang transaction, during Gwen or Pablo's time diay ang 1947 to 1961? pag chure oi! do u even know who was our vice pres and later on president during those times? c Sergio Osmena...and do u even know kinsa pud ang mga bigshot political players during those times? CHIONGBIANS...the Garcias were still out of the picture then.

so don't ever make the mistake that the transaction (expropriation) happened during their (Garcia's) time. it actually happened during Sergio Osmena's time, where Cebu was first coined as Osmena country...

AFAIK, the Lahug airport expropriation was already a done deal pag 1961. let me repeat: DONE DEAL na. From 1947 to 1961, ang yuta napalit ni Chiongbian from Faborada, then napalit sa RP from Chiongbian, then na transfer from RP to MCIAA.

It was only then in 1995 that Chiongbian filed a complaint vs MCIAA for reconveyance but got dismissed in RP's favor.

if u r talking about the transfer of the Lahug airport lot from MCIAA to JPVDC, then to the Ayalas, well, that's entirely another story.

You answered your own question. My point was pagbalhin sa lot from MCIAA to JPVDC, then to the Ayalas and that is not a different story. Since sila ang naglingkod, sila ang nangusog.

don't ever use the word "kunohay gamiton". GIGAMIT GYUD. mao btaw gitawag na sauna ug LAHUG AIRPORT and not some other name. kbaw ba ka kanusa gyud na officially closed ang Lahug airport? 1991.

what u mean tingali is wa na gamita as an airport. op kors, ky gibalhin naman sa Mactan. and like i said before, it is not always the case nga iuli ang expropriated property in case di na gamiton. kinanglan stipulated gyud na sa transaction w/ conditionality. fortunately for the other former lot owners, ilang na repurchase ky naa may conditionality ang ilang transaction before. unfortunately for Chiongbian, not.

I was pointing a hypothetical scenario, NOT the Lahug Airport. To reiterate my point, ang government mang expropriate ug mga yuta, human kung di na gamiton for public use, ibaligya sa lain private entity nga mas mobayad ug dako? Wa kay sayop nakita ana?

let's put it this way instead: there is really no legal issue anymore, that's why. LOLs

Wa na lang kay ni decide na man ang SC. Asa pa man di'ay na dad-on, sa Congress?

answer: ky di naman pwede iuli. the SC jurisprudence said it all. to explain why even in simple terms is to explain almost all the details of the case.

Kay di pwede i-uli? Sa original tag-iya? Ngano gud? Now, I am laughing... Don't you see a sly legal maneuver there?

i just don't know. i don't have the facts to say yes or no. just maybe, maybe not. besides, i don't work for the governor nor even a 4th degree relative of hers. LOLs

You may not be a relative but you do sound like a loyalist. MAYBE wa sila nidawat ug kickback sa CICC construction and lamp post overpricing? Are you kidding me?

Just got to me thinking...are u a close relative of V. Chiongbian? why prefer to defend her instead of the Republic of the Phils. (the people)? duda man lang sab ta...

I am not a relative of Chiongbian nor do I have interest in those contiguous lots in the old Lahug Airport. I just happen to know what REALLY happened. I am not against the people of the Philippines, I am for what is fair. In that country, people of the Philippines IS THE OFFICIAL SEATING IN POSITION and NOT THE PEOPLE.