Maharlika Investment Fund safeguards

the intervention will cause” (G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012).

“Both requirements must concur, as the first requirement on legal interest is not more important than the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result. To help ensure that delay does not result from the granting of a motion to intervene, the Rules also explicitly say that intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment by the trial court” (G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012).

“There is wisdom in strictly enforcing the period set by Rule 19 of the Rules of Court for the filing of a motion for intervention. Otherwise, undue delay would result from many belated filings of motions for intervention after judgment has already been rendered, because a reassessment of claims would have to be done” (G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012).

In the case of Ongco v. Dalisay, Valeriana Ungco Dalisay (Dalisay) applied for the registration of a parcel of land by filing an Application for Land Registration before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binangonan. At the hearings, no oppositor aside from the Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) came (G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012).

There being no oppositor, an Order of General Default was issued against the whole world except the Republic.

Consequently, the court found Dalisay to have clearly shown a registrable right over the subject property and ordered that a decree of registration be issued by the Land Registration Authority once the Decision had become final.

The Republic filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. While the case was pending appeal, Lorenza C. Ongco (Ongco) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene with an attached Answer-in-Intervention which sought the dismissal of Dalisay’s Application for Land Registration on the grounds that the subject property was not free from any adverse claim.

The Court of Appeals denied the intervention since it was filed after the judgment was rendered in the trial court and when the appeal was pending with it.

Moreover, Ongco is not an indispensable party since her interests are inchoate and merely collateral, as she is only in the process of applying for a free patent (G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012).

“Also, the action for land registration may proceed… without joining her. This is because the issues to be threshed out in a land registration proceeding — such as whether the subject land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and whether the applicant… [has] been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the said land… — can be threshed out without joining petitioner” (G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012).

“In any case, we note that petitioner (Ongco) is not left without any remedy in case respondent (Dalisay) succeeds in getting a decree of registration. The person may file, in the proper court, a petition for reopening and reviewing the decree of registration (obtained by actual fraud) within one year from the date of entry thereof (G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012 citing Section 32 of Presidential Decree 1529).

In the case of Looyuko, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., the Manila Regional Trial Court issued a writ of execution in an action for judicial foreclosure.

Subsequently, the deputy sheriff sold in a public bidding the parcel of land covered by TCT 1702 to FGU with a certificate of sale which was later confirmed by the RTC (G.R. 102696, July 12, 2001).

The RTC issued an order for the cancellation of TCT 242 and for the issuance of a new TCT in FGU’s name.

Before the new TCT could be issued, the Spouses Gutang filed a motion for intervention and to set aside the judgment of the RTC, alleging that they are the new registered owners of the property (G.R. 102696, July 12, 2001).

In an Order, the RTC allowed the motion for intervention, holding the failure of FGU to implead the Spouses in the action for foreclosure deprived the latter of due process. Later, Looyuko et al. filed a motion for intervention, which the RTC granted (G.R. 102696, July 12, 2001).

The Supreme Court ruled that a motion for intervention should be made “before or during a trial” or can be filed any time before the rendition of judgment.

“[T]he motions for intervention were filed after judgment had already been rendered… [and] when the case was already final and executory… [this] can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment” (G.R. 102696, July 12, 2001).

the years ahead.

That was the main point of National Treasurer Rosalia de Leon when she appeared before a media forum recently. She gave assurances that the MIF, which is our version of what’s called a Sovereign Wealth Fund in other countries, has ample safeguards or safety nets to ensure proper and transparent utilization and prevent mismanagement.

First of all, she pointed out, Congress will have oversight functions over the MIF, which will eventually become the Maharlika Investment Corporation or MIC.

The MIF will have both internal and external auditors who will submit regular reports its financial performance.

The oversight committee will include seven members each from the House of Representatives and the Senate. Another important provision is that the coun-

The MIF will be used to invest in a wide range of assets, including foreign currencies, fixed-income instruments, domestic and foreign corporate bonds, commercial real estate and infrastructure projects try’s social protection institutions such as GSIS, SSS, Pag-IBIG and PhilHealth will be prohibited from investing in the fund, a provision clearly stipulated in the version recently passed by the Senate.

The National Treasurer also pointed out that government financial institutions (GFIs) in the country have ample resources to support the MIF. She said Landbank and the Development Bank of the Philippines each have investible funds.

Landbank, owned by the government, has P1.3 trillion in investible funds, but will infuse only P50 billion into the MIF, or roughly three percent.

The DBP, on the other hand, has P850 billion in investible funds, but will put in just P25 billion into the MIF.

To the argument raised by critics that the MIF should consist solely of surplus funds, de Leon noted that even countries with no current account surplus such as Indonesia, India and Vietnam, have established their own sovereign wealth funds to support their priority development projects.

She cited the case of Indonesia which also has its sovereign wealth fund, the Indonesia Investment Authority (INA).

Indonesia, like the Philippines, she said, is also operating on a fiscal deficit.

But the government contributed $2 billion to set up the INA and also transferred assets worth $3 billion.

So, even while they have a fiscal deficit, they still went ahead and provided capital for the INA.

The MIF will be used to invest in a wide range of assets, including foreign currencies, fixed-income instruments, domestic and foreign corporate bonds, commercial real estate and infrastructure projects.

And just as important, it is fully aligned with the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework and 8-point Socio-Economic Agenda of the Marcos administration that envisions sustained economic growth in the years ahead.