BCDA BGC Taguig, homeowners group lay claim to Jusmag land

Standard

A word war has broken out between two groups which are both claiming a portion of the 35.5-hectare Jusmag property in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.

Last week, one of the parties involved in the dispute—the Consular Area Residents Association Inc. which is composed of homeowners—claimed that the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) had threatened to evict them from the Diplomatic and Consular Area which, according to them, was not under the agency’s jurisdiction.

The group’s representative, retired Colonel Benjamin V. Zabat, said they received an eviction notice on July 20 from BCDA which contained a final warning for them to leave their houses as these were facing demolition.

Taken from:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/241011/bcda-homeowners-group-lay-claim-to-jusmag-land

Posted by:

Jonas Montemayor
Real Estate Broker
PRC License #: 0007396

Member: Philippine Association of Real Estate Boards – City of Taguig Real Estate Board

Advertisements

One thought on “BCDA BGC Taguig, homeowners group lay claim to Jusmag land

  1. Genkuro

    What the report lacks is this.

    The Diplomatic and Consular Area is not part of the BCDA jurisdiction. What’s troubling is they (BCDA), led by Cassanova, is insisting that the latter part of Consular is part of the JUSMAG Area which was earlier awarded to Megaworld to develop into the upscale residential West McKinley Hill, West Village. They are now in the process of putting up the perimeter frence in Consular Area that they claim is JUSMAG. Residents in the affected area are alarmed at why this has to happen when it is a clear violation in their charter that the entire 101,081 sq.m. Consular Area is not part of their jurisdiction.

    BCDA claims they have secured a Certificate of Compliance from the City of Taguig which they say is sufficient to effect the planned demolition of the affected portion of Consular Area. It is unclear whether BCDA has secured a Court Order to justify this planned move and up to what extent the coverage of which entails. Forced demolitions NOT NEEDING COURT ORDERS have to comply with certain restrictions and/or qualifications: The area is in a danger zone (riverbanks, under public utilities, etc). It is being cleared for GOVERNMENT UTILITIES and PROJECTS. To name only two. The area does not comply with either but it is being cleared for an upscale PRIVATE mixed use commercial/residential development.

    One thing is certain, families living in the portion of CONSULAR claimed by BCDA as part of JUSMAG area will be greatly affected by this planned unjustified move if forced demolition pushes through.

    I just hope the media focuses on this aspect of the demolition. The residents are amenable to comply with the law but implore the BCDA to correct it’s mistake in identifying which is really part of Consular or not. All the residents in the contested area HAVE ADDRESSES WHICH BEAR CONSULAR AREA, FORT BONIFACIO and not JUSMAG, FORT BONIFACIO. And those directly affected have been living in the contested area for decades.

    NOBODY in the area is claiming the Diplomatic and Consular Area is theirs. What the residents of Consular Area is concerned with is the encroachment done by the BCDA within the boundaries of Consular and claiming it as part of JUSMAG and the intimidation being done by threatening to demolish properties within Consular to the detriment of those directly affected by this move.

    The original settlers of Consular were given permission to reside in the area, some in the form of military orders by the then Post Commander to secure and maintain the area in the mid-50’s therefore incorrectly and unjustifiably calling or labeling them as informal settlers. Not one Post Commander nor President has rescinded that permission or order since. Later, these soldiers filed to have the land in question be sold to them during the time of President Diosdado Macapagal. It was acted on favorably by the various government agencies involved during that time. Unfortunately, Diosdado Macapagal lost the Presidential Election to Ferdinand Marcos thus their petition was never enforced. To additionally emphasize, NO ONE in the area has spurious land titles to claim the land is theirs as exemplified by what transpired in the case of Southside Homeowners Association Inc. (SHAI) of JUSMAG and as proven null and void by the courts.

    What the people of Consular are saying is this, JUSMAG and CONSULAR are two distinct and separate land areas in Fort Bonifacio. One cannot simply say this part belongs to JUSMAG (or say “I want this to reflect as part of JUSMAG”) without historical basis nor identifying the ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES between the two aforementioned areas.

    Yes it’s true that some of those that the BCDA has already relocated were in fact outside the boundaries of Consular. BUT those that are questioning the move and subject to be demolished ARE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY of CONSULAR.

    For those who does not know, there are NATURAL BARRIERS in the form of CREEKS on either side that separate CONSULAR Area from JUSMAG on one side and that between Forbes Park and Consular on the other. These two creeks meet and merge as one at the base (Dulo) of Consular. The land found between these two intersecting creeks from its entrance point is Consular Area. Historical maps of FORT MCKINLEY will prove this.

    During the 70′s inside the closed to the public Fort Andres Bonifacio (formerly Fort McKinley), aside from the creek on the JUSMAG/CONSULAR side, there exists man made military fences that clearly defined the boundaries between the two areas. On the Forbes/Consular Side, the creek is situated in a natural deep gap between the two areas aside from the property walls on the Forbes side.

    Today, the creek naturally dividing Consular Area and JUSMAG is gone. The BCDA has dumped land over it. Not that it mattered anymore since it dried up when development of Fort Bonifacio started. To compound the issue further, what prompted the BCDA to re-map the area and chop a portion of it and call it part of JUSMAG? If it wasn’t the BCDA who did this then who was the one responsible?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s