CJH unit owners continue to demand justice from BCDA’s ‘illegal takeover’
UPSCALE HOMES These villas inside Camp John Hay, shown here on Dec. 19, 2024, are among posh properties leased for 50 years, or up to 2046, from Camp John Hay Development Corp. (CJHDevco). The leaseholders were evicted from these units in January after the Bases Conversion and Development Authority took over Camp John Hay from CJHDevco. They are now suing CJHDevco to recover multimillion-peso investments. —VINCENT CABREZA
BAGUIO CITY — Unit owners at Camp John Hay have once again raised the alarm over what they describe as an “illegal and abusive” takeover by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), accusing the state agency and court sheriffs of forcibly enforcing writs and break-open orders that were never meant to apply to private leaseholders.
In a letter recently filed with the Regional Trial Court in Baguio, legal counsel for a Forest Lodge condominium owner argued that BCDA’s enforcement actions violate both the 2015 Final Arbitral Award and the 2024 Supreme Court ruling, which merely reinstated execution between BCDA and developer CJH Development Corporation (CJHDevCo). The owner emphasized that homeowners who were never parties to the arbitration are now being treated as if they were, facing forcible entry into their units without due process. The letter described the enforcement as a “grave abuse of discretion.”
At the center of the homeowners’ protest is the issue of jurisdiction. They assert that the court never acquired personal jurisdiction over them, as they were not impleaded in the original legal dispute. However, the notices to vacate sent to them invoked the sweeping clause “and all persons claiming rights under them,” a phrase the homeowners say improperly expands the scope of a writ intended solely for CJHDevCo and BCDA.
The homeowners further pointed to language in the arbitral award, which directed that the parties be “reverted, as far as practicable, to their original position,” while also acknowledging the existence of third-party rights. Nowhere, they argue, does the ruling authorize the eviction of sub-lessees or private purchasers who had acquired their leasehold rights lawfully and in good faith under government-approved contracts.
Their concern is heightened by the timing of the enforcement. The writ of execution being cited is dated April 14, 2015—making it a decade old. While the Supreme Court reinstated the writ in 2024, the homeowners contend that such reinstatement does not exempt it from expiration rules or the requirement to be specific in scope. Complicating matters, the break-open order issued by the court on January 31, 2025, listed certain units for forcible entry, but sheriffs have allegedly attempted to enter other units not mentioned in the order.
In response, counsel for the homeowners issued a formal demand for the ex officio sheriff to halt the enforcement within five days or face legal action. Possible consequences include charges for indirect contempt, administrative complaints before the Office of the Court Administrator, and separate filings before the Ombudsman or Department of Justice for wrongful execution. The homeowners cite Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that sheriffs must respect the rights of third-party claimants who were not involved in the original litigation.
As tensions continue to rise, court records have confirmed that the lawsuits now being filed target not CJHDevCo, but BCDA itself. A total of twelve petitions for quieting of title have already been filed by homeowners asserting that their leasehold rights remain valid until 2046. Legal teams for three more homeowners are preparing to submit additional petitions in the coming weeks. In parallel, a class suit has also been lodged by members of the John Hay golf club, led by former Baguio City Mayor Mauricio Domogan, challenging BCDA’s revocation of thousands of club memberships.
READ: John Hay homeowners to sue developer
Despite these mounting legal challenges, BCDA has yet to issue a formal statement. The agency maintains that its actions in January 2025—when it moved to take full control of the 247-hectare estate—were in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive. But homeowners argue that the directive never authorized the eviction of lawful sub-lessees whose contracts were recognized under earlier government-endorsed programs.
With at least twelve cases already pending and more expected, the legal standoff at Camp John Hay shows no signs of slowing. For hundreds of families, the issue goes beyond property lines. At stake, they argue, is the credibility of the government’s commitments to private investors—and whether rights honored for decades can be stripped away without due process or compensation.
