Marcoses have no ownership right over Paoay property, says SC

THE Supreme Court has declared that the Marcos family has no ownership right over a 57-hectare property in Barangay Suba, Paoay town in Ilocos Norte as it is considered part of their ill-gotten wealth.

This as the Court en banc through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen ruled as void for being “unconstitutional” the 25-year lease contract signed in December 1978 between Ferdinand Marcos Sr, father of current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., and the Philippine Tourism Authority.

The SC ruing was promulgated on Nov. 14, 2023 but made public only yesterday.

To recall, the property was leased by the elder Marcos, who died in 1989, at a nominal rate of P1 annually to the PTA ostensibly as part of efforts to develop the Paoay Lake area as a major tourist destination.

The PTA, on the other hand, will shoulder major improvements in the area, including the Malacañang of the North and the Paoay Sports Complex which, among others, houses an 18-hole golf course.

In its ruling, the High Court said there was no showing that Marcos Sr owned the land during the execution of the lease contract, adding that the area with Paoay Lake is even considered as a national park.

“Being a national park, the lots were public lands and remained part of the inalienable land of the public domain, and thus incapable of private appropriation. Petitioner, in insisting otherwise, is a mere usurper of public property,” part of the SC ruling said, adding that even if a presidential decree was issued converting the subject property and opening it for acquisition, there is no documentary or other evidence to prove that it was transferred to Marcos Sr. prior to the execution of the 1978 lease contract.

“Seeing as Marcos Sr. had no authority over the property, either as owner or possessor, he likewise had no authority to enter into the 1978 lease contract. Thus, the subject matter of the 1978 lease contract is wanting,” the SC further said.

“The extremely low rental fee was but a scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against the President holding any financial interest in any contract with a government agency,” the SC added.

With this, the SC held that the property should be returned to