The Court of Appeals has sustained its decision ordering the Philippine Estates Authority to convey a 19,274-square meter lot, following the joint venture agreement it signed with Shoemart Inc. in 1994 to develop Central Business Park 1, Island A in Pasay City.

In a two-page resolution, the CA’s Thirteenth Division through by Associate Justice Michael Elbinias held that the PEA failed to raise new arguments.

“A reading of defendant-appellant’s motion for reconsideration shows that the arguments raised by defendant-appellant had already been considered and passed upon by us when we rendered the decision dated Feb. 27, 2013 that is sought to be considered,” the CA said.

Associate Justices Isaias Dicdican and Nina Antonio-Valenzuela concurred with the ruling.

Under the JVA, PEA was responsible for removing the squatters with SM advancing the funds for relocation.

As stipulated, the amount will be paid by PEA with land located at CBP-1 Island A based on current appraisal value at the time of drawdown.

On, June 29, 1995, SM agreed to release P85 million it signed with PEA and PEA signed the Deed of Undertaking to implement the relocation of squatters in CBP-1 Island A.

On Nov. 10, 1999, PEA told SM that at the time of drawdown, the appraisal value of land at CBP-1 Island A was P4,410 per square meter, thus, the P85 million advanced by SM is equivalent in land area of 19,274 sqm later identified as Block D.

In 2005, SM represented by Henry Sy filed a “complaint for specific performance” against PEA after it failed to turn over the property despite payment.

But PEA said it had to seek first the guidance of the Commission on Audit on the propriety of the drawdown valuation given the delay over agreeing on the specific lot to be conveyed.

The CA ruled on Feb. 27, 2013 to dismiss PEA’s argument.

“The Deed of Undertaking, Agreement and JVA, were the best evidence of the intention of the parties, because they contained all the terms agreed upon by defendant-appellant PEA and plaintiff-appellee Sy,” the decision said.

“Thus, if the parties wanted the valuation of the land to be that as of the time that plaintiff- appellee Sy made the choice, and not at the time of drawdown, then such contracts, Deed of Undertaking, Agreement and JVA would have stated so.”

The CA noted that PEA General Manager Carlos Doble himself confirmed the value of the land at the time of the drawdown.