DAVAO CITY—The Regional Trial Court in Davao City has dismissed the civil suit filed by Davao farmers against the University of the Philippines-Mindanao involving the construction of an P8-billion sports complex because of forum shopping.
RTC Branch 17 Presiding Judge Evalyn Arellano-Morales junked the specific performance case lodged by 117 members of the Bago Oshiro Farmers Association Inc. against UP after learning that another civil suit involving the same property is pending before the RTC Branch 11.
The complex is to be built by UP and the city government.
The case involved the more than two-million square-meter lot presently occupied by UP-Mindanao, which is part of the one-million-hectare lot previously owned by Japanese firm Otha Development Co.
In their complaint, the farmers claimed they had occupied the lot since 1946 and on the process of the titling the land when the government gave the lot to UP in 1995.
The farmers said they were not informed when President Fidel V. Ramos, on July 3, 1996, signed Proclamation 822 segregating 2,044,312 square meters to UP.
They claimed the lots they had been occupying were the ones given by the Board of Liquidators to UP.
The complainants argued that they could not be held guilty of forum shopping since the case pending before RTC Branch 11 is for injunction while before RTC Branch 17 is for specific performance.
But Morales ruled that in the civil case before RTC Branch 11, the complainants also had a counterclaim demanding from UP to follow the terms and conditions in the MoA, which is also the same cause of action they sought in the case they had filed before RTC Branch 17.
The Board of Liquidators is the administrator of the property after the government took it from the Japanese firm in 1946.
“Plaintiff‘s members were prejudiced and defrauded by the registration of the aforesaid lands in the name of the defendant, because it was done without informing them,” the farmers said in their complaint.
In 1999, the complainants said they had signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Board of Liquidators stating among others that the rights of the occupants should be respected and recognized by UP and to relocate them to any portion of the property as well as to compensate them for the improvements on their occupied lots.
Despite several demands, the complainants said UP refused to comply with the terms and conditions of the MoA prompting them to seek legal action.
