BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – In the ongoing saga of Camp John Hay, the Sobrepeña-led Camp John Hay Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) has issued multiple statements addressing recent developments and asserting the rights of its stakeholders. Meanwhile, private unit owners at The Manor and The Forest Lodge have taken their grievances to the highest office in the land, appealing to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to intervene in what they call an unjust eviction.
Camp John Hay, a former US military base in Baguio City, was turned over to the Philippine government in 1991 and later placed under the administration of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). In 1996, BCDA entered into a 25-year lease agreement with CJHDevCo for the development of a mixed-use tourism and residential hub.
However, disputes over lease payments and development obligations led to years of legal battles. In April 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a 2015 arbitral ruling ordering CJHDevCo to vacate the leased premises and return them to BCDA. The ruling also mandated BCDA to refund CJHDevCo approximately P1.42 billion in rental payments.
On January 6, 2025, the court sheriff enforced the Supreme Court’s decision, officially returning the property to BCDA. Since then, tensions have escalated between the government agency and various stakeholders, including golf club members, unit owners, and CJHDevCo itself.
CJHDevCo’s response to BCDA’s takeover
On January 23, CJHDevCo issued a letter to members of the Camp John Hay Golf Club, condemning BCDA’s handling of the transition. The company argued that BCDA had disregarded the vested rights of golf club members who had purchased shares in good faith under a Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)-approved registration statement.
According to CJHDevCo, golf club memberships included a contractual right to use the golf course and facilities until 2047. The company accused BCDA of violating these agreements by barring members from playing unless they paid new fees under BCDA’s interim management.
CJHDevCo also alleged that BCDA was misleading members by shifting the responsibility onto the club itself. “The right to use the golf course and facilities until 2047 is one of the vested rights of a member,” the company stated, adding that BCDA was effectively nullifying these rights by imposing new conditions.
Withdrawal of movable assets
CJHDevCo confirmed that it had withdrawn golf course equipment, including maintenance machinery and golf carts, to protect what it considers its rightful property. It maintained that BCDA could use these assets — but only if it recognized the legitimacy of existing golf club memberships.
The company also reiterated its willingness to negotiate with BCDA but accused the agency of disregarding due process and failing to ensure a fair transition.
Communications to unit owners of The Manor and The Forest Lodge
CJHDevCo also reached out to unit owners at The Manor and The Forest Lodge, informing them that BCDA had begun posting “Under Custodia Legis” signs on their doors — effectively barring them from their properties.
CJHDevCo denounced these actions as unlawful, arguing that unit owners had acquired their properties legally, with full documentation. The company claimed that evictions were being carried out without just compensation or proper legal recourse.
To protect their assets, CJHDevCo advised unit owners to remove their furniture and fixtures from the properties, warning that BCDA’s continued refusal to negotiate could result in financial losses for private investors.
Unit owners’ appeal to President Marcos
Amid growing uncertainty, more than 60 unit owners of The Manor, The Forest Lodge, Forest Estates, Country Homes, Golf Estates, and Forest Cabins have made a direct appeal to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. In a letter sent on January 27, they called for humanitarian intervention to address their plight.
The unit owners maintained that they were innocent purchasers in good faith, having acquired their properties with full legal documentation from CJHDevCo or third-party sellers. They argued that they had no involvement in the legal dispute between BCDA and CJHDevCo but were now facing eviction as collateral damage.
Clik here to view.
BCDA responds to CJHDevCo
In light of these recent statements from CJHDevCo, the BCDA addressed key issues to clarify “misconceptions” surrounding the ongoing transition of Camp John Hay, in a statement on Friday, January 31.
For over two decades, CJHDevCo leased a portion of Camp John Hay from BCDA with the mandate to develop it into a premier tourism and residential destination.
However, years of legal disputes, unpaid obligations, and unauthorized transactions culminated in a Supreme Court ruling in October 2024, which affirmed the rescission of CJHDevCo’s lease and ordered the full turnover of the 247-hectare property back to BCDA.
Luxury unit owners: Victims of a misleading scheme?
Recent reports have surfaced regarding sublessees of luxury villas and hotel units at The Manor and The Forest Lodge who now find themselves caught in the legal enforcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Many of these individuals believed they were purchasing real estate, only to now realize that their transactions were not backed by valid property ownership.
While BCDA says it understands the frustration of affected unit owners, it has raised the following points in a bid to set the record straight on Camp John Hay:
1. CJHDevCo never had the authority to sell
Under the 1996 lease agreement between BCDA and CJHDevCo, the latter was merely a lessee — not the owner — of Camp John Hay. Yet, despite knowing this limitation, CJHDevCo marketed and sold units under “Contracts to Sell,” “Deeds of Absolute Sale,” and “Leaseback Agreements.”
In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against CJHDevCo and its subsidiaries for selling securities without proper registration. The Supreme Court later upheld this evaluation in 2016, making it clear that CJHDevCo had engaged in unauthorized transactions.
2. Why can’t BCDA honor the subleases?
Some unit owners are now appealing to BCDA to recognize their contracts for humanitarian reasons. However, BCDA cannot and will not legalize agreements that were found to be invalid from the beginning.
Beyond legal constraints, allowing these contracts to continue would mean that BCDA — a government entity tasked with developing economic zones for public benefit — would essentially be subsidizing the unlawful business model of CJHDevCo.
BCDA’s mandate is to generate revenue for the state, not to absorb liabilities caused by private entities that acted outside their legal authority.
3. CJHDevCo itself filed for lease rescission
Contrary to the narrative that BCDA unfairly took over Camp John Hay, it was actually CJHDevCo that initiated the cancellation of its lease in 2012. CJHDevCo filed a case with the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Incorporated (PDRCI) seeking to rescind the lease agreement and claim damages from BCDA.
The BCDA says the irony is clear: CJHDevCo sought to terminate its own lease while continuing to sell subleases dependent on that very agreement. If the corporation knew its lease with BCDA was at risk, why did it continue selling rights to unsuspecting buyers?
BCDA: A court-ordered takeover, not a hostile one
BCDA’s takeover of Camp John Hay was not a sudden, hostile act — it was the enforcement of a final Supreme Court decision. The government agency is merely reclaiming public property that was previously controlled by a private corporation under a contract that was legally dissolved.
It is understandable that many sublessees feel deceived, but the BCDA says the true accountability falls on CJHDevCo, which sold property it never had the right to sell. Instead of blaming BCDA for enforcing the law, the real question, it says, is: Will the affected buyers hold accountable the corporation that took their money under false pretenses, or will they continue directing their grievances at the government, which is merely carrying out a lawful court order? – Rappler.com
