SC: Marcoses have no ownership right over 57-hectare Paoay property

MANILA, Philippines — The Marcos family has no ownership right over a 57-hectare property in Paoay town in Ilocos Norte, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled, as it is ill-gotten wealth from an unconstitutional lease by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

In a 55-page decision promulgated in November 2023 but made public on Wednesday, the SC ruled as unconstitutional the 25-year lease contract signed in December 1978 between the late president and the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA), which is now the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority.

In the lease agreement, the property was rented out to the PTA at a low rate of P1 per year for 25 years, as part of efforts to develop the Paoay Lake area as a tourist destination.

The PTA would shoulder the cost of developments in the area, including the Malacañang of the North and a sports complex with a tennis court and a golf course.

The high court said “there is no showing” that the late dictator owned the land when the lease was executed.

Paoay Lake and its surrounding area were also part of a national park, which means the land is a public property that cannot be privately appropriated.

“Petitioner, in insisting otherwise, is a mere usurper of public property,” the ruling read.

Despite the issuance of a presidential decree converting the land and opening it for acquisition, the SC maintained there is no documentary or other evidence proving that the property was transferred to the late president before the 1978 lease agreement.

Marcos had no authority over the property, making the contract invalid, the SC ruled.

The contract also had provisions stating that ownership of improvements made during the lease would revert to Marcos upon termination.

This arrangement, the SC said, violated the constitutional prohibition against a President from holding any financial interest in a government contract, as outlined in both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

“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 declared.

With this, the SC ordered that the property be returned to