MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT v. BENJAMIN TUDTUD et.

al
G.R. No. 174012 | November 14, 2008
Carpio-Morales, J.

Doctrine: When the purpose in which the private land was expropriated was abandoned or the
private land was no longer needed, the same can be returned to the its original owners on the
condition that such owners will return the just compensation it received.

FACTS
The predecessors-in-interests of respondents herein were the owners of a certain lot of the
Banilad Estate which was expropriated for the purpose of expansion of the Cebu Lahug Airport.
However, no structures related to the operation of the airport was constructed on the said land.
Moreover, the said airport was closed and abandoned when the Mactan International Airport was
opened for the commercial flights which prompted the original owners of the land to file a case to
repurchase the same. They anchor their case on the assurance allegedly made by the NAC that
original owners and/or their successors-in-interest would be entitled to repurchase the lot when
and in the event that it was no longer used for airport purposes. Both the RTC and the CA ruled in
favor of the respondents.
On appeal, petitioners contend that the appellate court erred in not appreciating that the
decision which expropriated the land was absolute and unconditional. They also contend that the
reliance of the respondents on verbal assurances violate the statutes of frauds.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the original owners can repurchase the expropriated land provided that the original
purpose for which it was expropriated was abandoned or changed?- YES..
Petitioner’s main contention lies on the fact that the decree of expropriation is
absolute and unconditional. Nowhere in the decision gave respondents the right to
repurchase in the event that the purpose of which was not fulfilled, abandoned or changed.
However, it was also discussed in the same case they rely on that when the particular public
use is abandoned, the land may be returned to its original owner. In the case at bar, the land
was expropriated for the purpose of expansion of the Lahug Airport which did not
materialize. In light of this, the original owners may reacquire the assailed land but they
should return what they received as just compensation plus legal interest to be computed
from default.

2. W/N the reliance of respondents to the verbal assurances violate the Statute of Frauds? –
NO.
Petitioner also asserts that reliance on verbal assurance violate the Statute of Frauds.
However, it must be noted that Statute of Frauds is only applicable in executory contracts
and not to contracts which was partially or completely performed. And to emphasize, the
mode of acquisition for public purpose of a land - whether by expropriation or by contract
- is not material in determining whether the acquisition is with or without condition.

PETITION DENIED. DECISION OF THE CA IS AFFIRMED WITH

MODIFICATIONS.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1