GR 156273
Aug 9, 2005
Heirs of Moreno vs. Mactan FAC!" In 1949, the NAC sought to acquire Lot No. 916 and Lot No. 920 for the proposed expansion of the Lahug Airport. he t!o parce"s of "and "ocated in Lahug, Ce#u Cit$ !ere o!ned #$ the spouses i%oteo &oreno and &aria 'otea. he spouses refused to se"" their properties #ecause the proposed price !as unaccepta#"$ !a$ #e"o! the %ar(et )a"ue of the "ands at that ti%e. As an incenti)e for the other o!ners to cede their "ots ad*oining the then existing Lahug Airport, NAC guaranteed the% or their successors+in+interest the right to repurchase their properties for the sa%e price paid #$ the go)ern%ent in the e)ent that these properties !ere no "onger used for purposes of the airport. o%e "ando!ners executed deeds of con)e$ance !hi"e others !ho refused to cede their properties #eca%e defendants in an action for expropriation fi"ed #$ the 'epu#"ic of the -hi"ippines #efore the CI of Ce#u. Lot Nos. 916 and 920 !ere a%ong those inc"uded in the expropriation case. In a /ecision rendered #$ the tria" court, the properties of &oreno and 'otea !ere conde%ned for pu#"ic use after pa$%ent of *ust co%pensation. u#sequent"$, the Lahug Airport !as a#andoned and a"" its functions and operations !ere transferred to the &actan Airport. he petitioners herein, !rote then -resident ide" . 'a%os and the &CIAA enera" enera" &anager, requesting for the exercise of their supposed right to repurchase the "ots in question considering that the said "ots intended for the expansion of the Lahug Airport !ere not uti"ied. -etitioners fi"ed a co%p"aint for recon)e$ance and da%ages !ith the 'C of Ce#u Cit$ against the respondent asserting their right to reacquire the su#*ect properties. he tria" court rendered *udg%ent in fa)or of the petitioners, granti granting ng the% the% the right right to repurc repurchas hase e the proper propertie ties s at the a%ount a%ount origin origina"" a""$ $ paid paid #$ the respon responden dent, t, inc"ud inc"uding ing consequentia" da%ages. he CA re)ersed the tria" court3s decision on the pre%ise that the *udg%ent affir%ing the state3s right to exercise its po!er of e%inent do%ain !as unconditiona". he petitioners petitioners fi"ed a %otion for reconsideration #ut !as denied. -etitioners fi"ed #efore the C for re)ie! of the decision of the CA. C re)ersed the CA decision. 'espondents no! fi"ed a %otion for reconsideration. #!!$%" hether or not petitioners are entit"ed to recon)e$ance or repurchase of the "ots in question !hen the pu#"ic purpose for !hich the e%inent do%ain !as exercised no "onger su#sists. H%&'" he %otion for reconsideration fi"ed #$ respondents !as denied. Nothing in the er$ case #espea(s that there shou"d fore%ost #e an express condition in the dispositi)e portion of the decision #efore the conde%ned propert$ can #e returned to its for%er o!ner after the purpose for its ta(ing has #een a#andoned or ended. C a"so disco)ered a significant portion of the su#*ect properties had #een purchased #$ the Ce#u -ropert$ entures, entures, Inc. for the de)e"op%ent of a co%%ercia" co%p"ex. he respondent, in its ans!er, did not den$ this a""egation in the petitioners3 co%p"aint. he predo%inant precept is that upon a#andon%ent of rea" propert$ conde%ned for pu#"ic purpose, the p art$ !ho origina""$ conde%ned the propert$ reco)ers contro" of the "and if the conde%ning part$ continues to use the propert$ for pu#"ic purpose5 ho!e)er, if the conde%ning authorit$ ceases to use the propert$ for a pu#"ic purpose, propert$ re)erts to the o!ner in fee si%p"e. he go)ern%ent3s ta(ing of pri)ate propert$, and then transferring it to pri)ate persons under the guise of pu#"ic use or purpose is the despotis% found in the i%%ense po!er of e%inent do%ain. &oreo)er, the direct and unconstitutiona" state3s po!er to o#"ige a "ando!ner to renounce his producti)e and in)a"ua#"e possession to another citien, !ho !i"" use it predo%inant"$ for his o!n pri)ate gain, is offensi)e to our "a!s. hen the tate tate recon)e$s recon)e$s "and, it shou"d shou"d not profit fro% sudden appreciations appreciations in "and )a"ues. An$ increase increase or decrease in %ar(et )a"ue due to the proposed i%pro)e%ent %a$ not #e considered in deter%ining the %ar(et )a"ue. hus, recon)e$ance to the origina" o!ner sha"" #e for !hate)er a%ount he !as paid #$ the go)ern%ent, p"us "ega" interest, !hether or not the consideration !as #ased on the "and3s highest and #est use !hen the sa"e to the tate occurred.
