SC won't intervene yet in Forbes property dispute with Fabian Ver's partner

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court will not intervene yet in the controversial property dispute involving the partner of the late Marcos general Fabian Ver. 

In a resolution, the High Court’s second division denied the petition for certiorari filed by Daniel Vasquez, which sought to seek help in expelling Edna Camcam from a Forbes mansion in Makati City.  

Vasquez wanted Camcam to vacate the property in the aftermath of rulings from the Regional Trial Court of Makati and the Court of Appeals which declared him the real owner of the mansion. 

But in dismissing the petition, the SC ruled that there is a “violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of court,” adding that the seeking writs of certiorari should be filed in lower courts except for extraordinary circumstances.

“A direct invocation of the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons, therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition, which are absent in this case,” the resolution read. 

The Tribunal also noted that the Makati RTC’s move to transmit the records to the SC was premature as Camcam still had a pending motion for partial reconsideration before the CA in February 2017. 

“Settled is the rule that if a motion for reconsideration (including a partial motion for reconsideration) is timely filed by the proper party, the execution of the CA’s judgment or final resolution shall be stayed,” SC said.

Makati City RTC Branch 66 in February 2014 earlier ruled that Vasquez was the rightful owner of the property. But the apepals court ruled that it is the Metropolitan Trial Court which has jurisdiction, directing the case to be settled there. 

In February 2019, the CA ruled that Camcam can still enjoy Forbes Park homeowners' privileges.

A controversial dispute stretching years, Vasquez claimed that he became the owner of the property after it was foreclosed by the United Coconut Planters Bank in 1994. This, however, has been contested as Camcam said the agreement was a “long transaction and not a sale.” –