68-Heirs-of-Timoteo-Moreno-vs-Mactan-—-Cebu-International-Airport-Authority

R 188120 on 28 november 2002 reconsideration of the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: f respondent MCIAA and that it built thereon its Regional Equipment Services and its Region 7 Office.14 On 12 April 1999 the trial court found merit in the claims of petitioners and granted them the right to repurchase the properties at the amount pegged as just compensation in Civil Case No. R- 1881 but subject to the alleged property rights of Richard E. Enchuan and the leasehold of DPWH.15 The trial court opined that the expropriation became illegal or functus officio when the purpose for which it was intended was no longer there.16 Respondent MCIAA appealed the Decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA- G.R. CV No. 64456.1ªvvphi1.nét On 20 December 2001 the Court of Appeals reversed the assailed Decision on the ground that the judgment of condemnation in Civil Case No. R- 1881 was unconditional so that the rights gained therefrom by respondent MCIAA were indicative of ownership in fee simple.17 The appellate court cited Fery v. Municpality of Cabanatuan18 which held that 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, and Mactan- Cebu International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals19 which is allegedly stare decisis to the instant case to prevent the exercise of the right of repurchase as the former dealt with a parcel of land similarly expropriated under Civil Case No. R- 1881.20 On 28 November 2002 reconsideration of the Decision was denied. 21 Hence, this petition for review. Petitioners argue that Fery v. Municpality of Cabanatuan does not apply to the case at bar since what was involved therein was the "right of reversion" and not the "right of repurchase" which they are invoking. They also differentiate Mactan- Cebu International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals22 from the instant case in that the landowners in the MCIAA case offered inadmissible evidence to show their entitlement to a right of repurchase, while petitioners herein offered evidence based on personal knowledge for which reason MCIAA did not object and thus waived whatever objection it might have had to the admissibility thereof. Finally, petitioners allege that their right to equal protection of the laws would be infringed if some landowners are given the right to repurchase their former properties even as they are denied the exercise of such prerogative. On the other...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online