BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – Within the ongoing saga of Camp John Hay, the Sobrepeña-led Camp John Hay Growth Company (CJHDevCo) has issued a number of statements addressing current developments and asserting the rights of its stakeholders. In the meantime, personal unit homeowners at The Manor and The Forest Lodge have taken their grievances to the very best workplace within the land, interesting to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to intervene in what they name an unjust eviction.
Camp John Hay, a former US army base in Baguio Metropolis, was turned over to the Philippine authorities in 1991 and later positioned below the administration of the Bases Conversion and Growth Authority (BCDA). In 1996, BCDA entered right into a 25-year lease settlement with CJHDevCo for the event of a mixed-use tourism and residential hub.
Nevertheless, disputes over lease funds and improvement obligations led to years of authorized battles. In April 2024, the Supreme Court docket upheld a 2015 arbitral ruling ordering CJHDevCo to vacate the leased premises and return them to BCDA. The ruling additionally mandated BCDA to refund CJHDevCo roughly P1.42 billion in rental funds.
On January 6, 2025, the courtroom sheriff enforced the Supreme Court docket’s choice, formally returning the property to BCDA. Since then, tensions have escalated between the federal government company and varied stakeholders, together with golf membership members, unit homeowners, and CJHDevCo itself.
CJHDevCo’s response to BCDA’s takeover
On January 23, CJHDevCo issued a letter to members of the Camp John Hay Golf Membership, condemning BCDA’s dealing with of the transition. The corporate argued that BCDA had disregarded the vested rights of golf membership members who had bought shares in good religion below a Securities Change Fee (SEC)-approved registration assertion.
In accordance with CJHDevCo, golf membership memberships included a contractual proper to make use of the golf course and services till 2047. The corporate accused BCDA of violating these agreements by barring members from taking part in except they paid new charges below BCDA’s interim administration.
CJHDevCo additionally alleged that BCDA was deceptive members by shifting the accountability onto the membership itself. “The proper to make use of the golf course and services till 2047 is without doubt one of the vested rights of a member,” the corporate acknowledged, including that BCDA was successfully nullifying these rights by imposing new situations.
Withdrawal of movable property
CJHDevCo confirmed that it had withdrawn golf course tools, together with upkeep equipment and golf carts, to guard what it considers its rightful property. It maintained that BCDA might use these property — however provided that it acknowledged the legitimacy of present golf membership memberships.
The corporate additionally reiterated its willingness to barter with BCDA however accused the company of disregarding due course of and failing to make sure a good transition.
Communications to unit homeowners of The Manor and The Forest Lodge
CJHDevCo additionally reached out to unit homeowners at The Manor and The Forest Lodge, informing them that BCDA had begun posting “Below Custodia Legis” indicators on their doorways — successfully barring them from their properties.
CJHDevCo denounced these actions as illegal, arguing that unit homeowners had acquired their properties legally, with full documentation. The corporate claimed that evictions had been being carried out with out simply compensation or correct authorized recourse.
To guard their property, CJHDevCo suggested unit homeowners to take away their furnishings and fixtures from the properties, warning that BCDA’s continued refusal to barter might lead to monetary losses for personal traders.
Unit homeowners’ enchantment to President Marcos
Amid rising uncertainty, greater than 60 unit homeowners of The Manor, The Forest Lodge, Forest Estates, Nation Houses, Golf Estates, and Forest Cabins have made a direct enchantment to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. In a letter despatched on January 27, they referred to as for humanitarian intervention to handle their plight.
The unit homeowners maintained that they had been harmless purchasers in good religion, having acquired their properties with full authorized documentation from CJHDevCo or third-party sellers. They argued that that they had no involvement within the authorized dispute between BCDA and CJHDevCo however had been now going through eviction as collateral harm.
BCDA responds to CJHDevCo
In gentle of those current statements from CJHDevCo, the BCDA addressed key points to make clear “misconceptions” surrounding the continued transition of Camp John Hay, in a press release on Friday, January 31.
For over 20 years, CJHDevCo leased a portion of Camp John Hay from BCDA with the mandate to develop it right into a premier tourism and residential vacation spot.
Nevertheless, years of authorized disputes, unpaid obligations, and unauthorized transactions culminated in a Supreme Court docket ruling in October 2024, which affirmed the rescission of CJHDevCo’s lease and ordered the total turnover of the 247-hectare property again to BCDA.
Luxurious unit homeowners: Victims of a deceptive scheme?
Latest stories have surfaced concerning sublessees of luxurious villas and resort items at The Manor and The Forest Lodge who now discover themselves caught within the authorized enforcement of the Supreme Court docket’s ruling. Many of those people believed they had been buying actual property, solely to now notice that their transactions weren’t backed by legitimate property possession.
Whereas BCDA says it understands the frustration of affected unit homeowners, it has raised the next factors in a bid to set the report straight on Camp John Hay:
1. CJHDevCo by no means had the authority to promote
Below the 1996 lease settlement between BCDA and CJHDevCo, the latter was merely a lessee — not the proprietor — of Camp John Hay. But, regardless of realizing this limitation, CJHDevCo marketed and bought items below “Contracts to Promote,” “Deeds of Absolute Sale,” and “Leaseback Agreements.”
In 2012, the Securities and Change Fee (SEC) issued a Stop and Desist Order in opposition to CJHDevCo and its subsidiaries for promoting securities with out correct registration. The Supreme Court docket later upheld this analysis in 2016, making it clear that CJHDevCo had engaged in unauthorized transactions.
2. Why can’t BCDA honor the subleases?
Some unit homeowners at the moment are interesting to BCDA to acknowledge their contracts for humanitarian causes. Nevertheless, BCDA can’t and won’t legalize agreements that had been discovered to be invalid from the start.
Past authorized constraints, permitting these contracts to proceed would imply that BCDA — a authorities entity tasked with growing financial zones for public profit — would primarily be subsidizing the illegal enterprise mannequin of CJHDevCo.
BCDA’s mandate is to generate income for the state, to not take up liabilities attributable to personal entities that acted outdoors their authorized authority.
3. CJHDevCo itself filed for lease rescission
Opposite to the narrative that BCDA unfairly took over Camp John Hay, it was truly CJHDevCo that initiated the cancellation of its lease in 2012. CJHDevCo filed a case with the Philippine Dispute Decision Heart Included (PDRCI) searching for to rescind the lease settlement and declare damages from BCDA.
The BCDA says the irony is obvious: CJHDevCo sought to terminate its personal lease whereas persevering with to promote subleases depending on that very settlement. If the company knew its lease with BCDA was in danger, why did it proceed promoting rights to unsuspecting consumers?
BCDA: A court-ordered takeover, not a hostile one
BCDA’s takeover of Camp John Hay was not a sudden, hostile act — it was the enforcement of a remaining Supreme Court docket choice. The federal government company is merely reclaiming public property that was beforehand managed by a non-public company below a contract that was legally dissolved.
It’s comprehensible that many sublessees really feel deceived, however the BCDA says the true accountability falls on CJHDevCo, which bought property it by no means had the appropriate to promote. As a substitute of blaming BCDA for implementing the regulation, the true query, it says, is: Will the affected consumers maintain accountable the company that took their cash below false pretenses, or will they proceed directing their grievances on the authorities, which is merely finishing up a lawful courtroom order? – Rappler.com
