By Rey E. Requejo

A Cebu-based aquaculture company has appealed to the Supreme Court to set for oral arguments its case involving the disputed P100 million worth of land in Lapu-Lapu City.

Aqualab Philippines Inc. filed a four-page urgent motion not only for the sake of substantial justice by affording it with its constitutional right to due process, but also because the questioned resolution of the court, if allowed to become final, would be a very dangerous precedent.

Aqualab earlier sought a review of the Second Division?s resolution dated Sept. 29, 2008, which would nullify the company?s ownership of 1.7 hectares of prime land in Lapu-Lapu City it bought in 1988.

That resolution denied Aqualab?s petition seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals decision dated March 15, 2007, which overturned the Sept. 30, 1997 decision of Lapu-Lapu City Regional Trial Court Branch 53. In the regional trial court, Aqualab won a ruling that dismissed the complaint for declaration of nullity of documents, cancellation of transfer certificates of title and reconveyance with right of legal redemption filed by respondents heirs of Marcelino Pagobo, on ground of lack of cause of action and prescription.

In seeking a reversal of the Sept. 29, 2008 resolution, Aqualab said the tribunal appeared to have committed an error in upholding a March 17, 2007 decision of the appellate court that ordered the cancellation of its titles to its property in favor of the heirs of Marcelino Pagobo.

In fact, Aqualab cited that as early as 1977, the high court had validated certain conveyances of portions of the property from where its land used to be a part of, and which decisions have not been questioned by the government since 1977 and until the present, such that no reasonable conclusion can be had that the government has already recognized the validity of the ownership and title of the transferors.?

But in the case of Aqualab, the CA decision reversed the Sept. 30, 1997 ruling of the Lapu-Lapu City RTC that dismissed the Pagobos? case.

Worse, Aqualab said, the Second Division affirmed in a minute resolution on Sept. 29, 2008 the CA decision without affording it (Aqualab) constitutional right to due process and fair judicial proceedings.

According to Aqualab, the CA abused its discretion in deciding on the merits the case brought by the Pagobos who merely wanted the appellate court to remand to the RTC for trial the case they filed against the firm.

?The CA decision is made more beyond comprehension when it turned a blind eye on the fundamental precepts of fair play because with nary any evidence as to the legal personality of the respondents [the heirs] to institute the case at the trial court, nor of their legal or equitable title to the property, it arbitrarily resolved the complaint,? Aqualab said.