CA grants Osmeña’s appeal contesting SPR lots sale

Local

THE Court of Appeals (CA) has withdrawn its earlier Entry of Judgment that declared final its ruling against former Cebu City mayor Tomas Osmeña's challenge to the city's P17-billion South Road Properties (SRP) land sale, acknowledging that the city official had already filed a timely appeal before the Supreme Court.

In a resolution promulgated on June 25, 2026, the CA's Special Former Twentieth Division granted Osmeña's motion to withdraw the Entry of Judgment issued on April 29, 2025, after finding that his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 had been timely filed with the Supreme Court.

The appellate court ruled that the Entry of Judgment was prematurely issued because the case had already been elevated to the High Court through a petition docketed as G.R. No. 281302.

"The Decision dated 27 September 2023 cannot yet attain finality because of petitioner-appellant's timely appeal," the court said in its resolution.

The CA also recalled and set aside its April 29, 2025 Resolution that certified its September 27, 2023 decision had become final and executory.

The appellate court explained that it had issued the Entry of Judgment because it was unaware that Osmeña had already appealed its ruling to the Supreme Court.

According to the resolution, Osmeña admitted that his camp, "through sheer inadvertence and excusable neglect," failed to furnish the Court of Appeals with copies of the Rule 45 petition filed before the Supreme Court.

To correct the omission, Osmeña later submitted copies of the petition together with a manifestation and motion asking the CA to withdraw the Entry of Judgment.

After examining the records, the appellate court found that the appeal had been filed within the period allowed under the Rules of Court.

The CA noted that Osmeña received, through counsel, the resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on October 8, 2024.

His motion seeking an extension to file a Rule 45 petition was filed on October 21, 2024—well within the 15-day reglementary period—and the actual petition was subsequently filed on November 20, 2024, within the 30-day extension granted by the Supreme Court.

Citing the Supreme Court ruling in PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Milan, the appellate court emphasized that a judgment becomes final and executory only after the period to appeal expires without any appeal being filed.

Since Osmeña had perfected his appeal within the prescribed period, the CA ruled that its earlier certification of finality should be withdrawn.

The development revives the legal proceedings involving Osmeña's challenge to Cebu City's 2015 sale of approximately 45 hectares of SRP property worth about P17 billion.

Osmeña first filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Cebu City Regional Trial Court in September 2019, arguing that the negotiated sale between the city government and the SM-Ayala and Filinvest consortium was invalid.

He maintained that the transaction lacked prior authorization from the 13th Cebu City Council and that then mayor Michael Rama had no authority to enter into the agreement without legislative approval.

Osmeña also argued that the SRP property had been sold below its true value, claiming the land could have fetched more than P50 billion.

In January 2021, the Regional Trial Court Branch 10 dismissed the petition, ruling that Osmeña lacked legal standing to sue as a taxpayer, constituent, or former mayor.

The trial court likewise held that the former mayor had no cause of action because the City Council had authorized Rama to sign the contracts with the developers.

Osmeña elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's dismissal in a September 27, 2023 decision.

The CA later denied his motion for reconsideration on August 29, 2024.

Although the appellate court subsequently issued an Entry of Judgment in April 2025 declaring its ruling final and executory, it has now withdrawn that certification after confirming that Osmeña's appeal had already been timely filed before the Supreme Court.

The case remains pending before the High Court, which will decide whether to review the appellate court's ruling on the validity of the SRP land sale.(TGP)