Villar Land Holdings Group, under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over alleged stock price manipulation, said it has yet to receive a copy of the criminal complaint filed with the Department of Justice and cannot comment further until it does.
In a disclosure to the Philippine Stock Exchange, the company said it is aware only of details contained in the SEC’s public statement. “In view of the foregoing, the Company cannot provide any further clarification or disclosure on the matter until we receive a copy of the complaint,” Villar Land said, stressing that it and its directors “are entitled to due process.”
The SEC filed the complaint on January 30 against Villar Land—formerly Golden MV Holdings Inc.—for alleged violations of the Securities Regulation Code, including making false or misleading statements and engaging in fraudulent acts in connection with securities transactions.
Named in the case are Villar Land chairman and former Senate President Manuel B. Villar Jr., his wife former Senator Cynthia A. Villar, and their children Mark A. Villar and Camille A. Villar, both incumbent senators. Several other directors, including two independent directors, were also cited.
Regulators also charged related firms Infra Holdings Corp. and MGS Construction, along with their officers, for alleged price manipulation. The SEC claimed the firms engaged in coordinated trading to create artificial demand and support Villar Land’s share price. Infra Holdings is owned by Virgilio B. Villar, brother of Manuel Villar Jr.
At the core of the case is Villar Land’s 2024 disclosure reporting total assets of P1.33 trillion and net income of P999.72 billion—figures driven largely by a revaluation of real estate assets and released before the completion of an external audit, according to the SEC. When audited financial statements were later submitted, total assets fell sharply to P35.7 billion, triggering a steep drop in the stock.
The complaint also accused Camille A. Villar of insider trading, alleging she bought shares shortly before a price-moving disclosure.
For the market, the case highlights tougher enforcement on disclosures and trading behavior—and renewed scrutiny of governance at politically connected firms.
