University of San Agustin College of Law

MARZAN 1-E

Heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport
Case Name
Authority
Topic Power of Eminent Domain
Case No. |
G.R. No. 156273 | October 15, 2003
Date
Ponente Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo
Lots belonging to the petitioners’ ascendants were expropriated for the supposed
expansion of the Lahug Airport in Cebu City, which never materialized and closed down
Case
to transfer operations to a newer airport in Lapu-Lapu City in Mactan. Petitioners sought
Summary
to repurchase the land, which feel on deaf ears, hence this petition. The Court granted
the petition, citing a previous ruling.
If land is expropriated for a particular purpose, with the condition that when that purpose
is ended or abandoned the property shall return to its former owner, then, of course, when
Doctrine
the purpose is terminated or abandoned the former owner reacquires the property so
expropriated.

RELEVANT FACTS

 Ascendants of petitioners were owners of Lots No. 916 and 920 in Lahug, Cebu City, two of the
properties which the National Airport Corporation (predecessor to the CAAP and the MCIAA) were
eyeing to buy for the expansion and continued development of the Lahug Airport.
 The owners refused to sell the property, even after the NCA had promised that the lots will be allowed
for repurchase after the airport closes or operations will be transferred to Mactan Airport, and even
after some of the owners of surrounding lots had sold their property upon becoming aware of the
offer.
 As negotiations broke down, the Civil Aeronautics Authority filed a complaint to expropriate the Lots
916 and 920, which the CFI of Cebu granted, with compensation towards the owners, however these
lots were never utilized for the expansion.
 The lots were subsequently transferred to the current authority, the Mactan-Cebu International Airport
Authority (MCIAA) in 1990, however Lahug Airport as closed in 1991 and airport operations were
transferred to Mactan Airport in 1991.
 Petitioners, as successors-in-interest, wrote to President Fidel Ramos and the airport manager
begging them to exercise their alleged right to repurchase the lots, however these fell on deaf ears,
and then filed a petition with the RTC of Cebu City against MCIAA to compel repurchase, averring
that the MCIAA’s predecessors convinced that the lots would be able to be repurchased if the airport
expansion did not push through.
 During the course of the civil suit, one Richard Enchuan and the Department of Public Works and
Highways intervened in the petition; Enchuan alleging he had acquired both lots through deeds of
assignment, while the DPWH claimed it leased Lot No. 920 from MCIAA’s predecessors and built its
Regional Equipment Services and its Regional Office VII.
 The RTC granted the petition subject to the alleged claims of Enchuan and the lease of the DPWH,
stating that the expropriation became illegal or functus officio when the purpose for which it was
intended was no longer there.
 The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court, citing Fery v. Municipality of
Cabanatuan 1 which held that the public purpose for which the power of eminent domain was

1 42 Phil 28 (1921).
 University of San Agustin College of Law
MARZAN 1-E

exercised does not justify the reversion of the property to its former owners, and MCIAA v. CA2, as it
had similar premises, to prevent the exercise of the right of repurchase.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
Whether or not  The Court did not overrule their decisions in Fery and MCIAA.
petitioners have a  MCIAA is correct in stating that one would not find an express statement in the
right to repurchase Decision in the civil suit to the effect that "the [condemned] lot would return to
Lot Nos. 916 and [the landowner] or that [the landowner]... had a right to repurchase the same
920. if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended or abandoned or if the
property was to be used other than as the Lahug Airport."
 Based on the Decision of the Court in MCIAA v. CA, the return or repurchase
of the condemned properties of petitioners could be readily justified as the
manifest legal effect or consequence of the trial court's underlying presumption
that "Lahug Airport will continue to be in operation" when it granted the
complaint for eminent domain and the airport discontinued its activities.
 In the case at bar, petitioners conveyed Lots Nos. 916 and 920 to the
government with the latter obliging itself to use the realties for the expansion
of Lahug Airport; failing to keep its bargain, the government can be compelled
by petitioners to reconvey the parcels of land to them, otherwise, petitioners
would be denied the use of their properties upon a state of affairs that was not
conceived nor contemplated when the expropriation was authorized.

RULING

Petition is GRANTED.

2 G.R. No. 139435, 27 November 2000, 346 SCRA 126.