Heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea v.

Mactan-Cebu International
Airport Authority
Facts
The heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea are the successors-in-interest of
the former registered owners of 2 parcels of land in Lahug, Cebu City. (Lot No.
916 - 2,355 sq. m and Lot No. 920 - 3,097 sq. m)
The National Airport Corporation (predecessor agency of Mactan-Cebu
International Airport Authority) wanted to acquire Lots 916 and 920 for
proposed expansion of Lahug Airport.
o To entice landowners, the government assured them that they could
repurchase their lands once Lahug Airport was closed or its operations
transferred to Mactan Airport.
o Some landowners agreed, but others (like petitioners) refused the offer
because the payment was perceived to be below the market price.
As negotiations for purchase of lots broke down, Civil Aeronautics
Administration (successor agency of NAC) filed a complaint with CFI Cebu
for expropriation of Lots 916 & 920 and other lots.
TC condemned Lots 916 & 920 and others for public use upon payment of just
compensation.
o The predecessors were paid P7,065 for 916 and P9,291 for 920 with
consequential damages.
o No appeal, therefore final and executor.
o CT issued in favor of RP, and TCT transferred to MCIAA.
Lahug Airport ceased operations as Mactan Airport was opened.
Lots 916 & 920 were not utilized. No expansion was undertaken.
Petitioners filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages with RTC-Cebu
against MCIAA to compel repurchase of Lots 916 & 920.
o They had been convinced by officers of MCIAAs predecessor not to
oppose the expropriation proceedings since they could repurchase
properties.
Richard Enchuan filed a Motion for Transfer of Interest alleging that he
acquired through deeds of assignment the rights of petitioners over the lots.
DPWH sought to intervene, claiming that it leased in good faith Lot 920.
TC ruled in favour of petitioners and granted them the right to repurchase (at
just compensation) but subject to the alleged property rights of Enchuan and
leasehold of DPWH.
o Expropriation became illegal when purpose for which it was intended
was no longer there.
CA reversed.
o Judgment of condemnation was unconditional so that the rights gained
by MCIAA were indicative of ownership in fee simple.
o Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan - mere deviation from the public
purpose for which the power of eminent domain was exercised does
not justify the reversion of the property to its former owners
o MCIAA v. CA stare decisis
Hence, petition for review.

Issus: WoN the petitioners can exercise the right of repurchase

YES
Fery and MCIAA rulings are applicable but must be commensurate to the
facts established in this case.
Expropriation of the predecessors of respondent was ordered under the
impression that Lahug Airport would continue in operation. (Decision in Civil
Case R-1881). Thus, the expropriated properties would remain to be so until it
was confirmed that Lahug Airport was no longer in operation.
While there is no express statement in the Decision that there is a right to
repurchase, it is not absolutely necessary or fatal to the cause of petitioners.
The return or repurchase of the condemned properties could be justified as
the legal effect of the TCs underlying presumption that the Lahug Airport
will continue to be in operation when it granted the complaint for eminent
domain.
It involves a constructive trust, akin to the implied trust referred to in A1454
CC.
Petitioners conveyed Lots Nos. 916 & 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.
MCIAA is obliged to reconvey the lots and petitioners must restore to MCIAA
what they received as just compensation. No need to pay for improvements
introduced by third parties.