be used upon the expansion of said projects and order for just compensation to the land owners,at the same time directed the latter to transfer certificate or ownership or title in the name of theplaintiff. At the end of 1991, Lahug Airport completely ceased its operation while the Mactan-Cebu airport opened to accommodate incoming and outgoing commercial flights. This thenprompted the land owners to demand for the reconveynace of said properties being expropriatedby the trial court under the power of eminent domain. Hence these two consolidated cases arise.In G.R. No. 168812 MCIAA is hereby ordered by court to reconvey said properties tothe land owners plus attorney’s fee and cost of suit, while in G.R. No. 168770, the RTC ruled infavor of the petitioners Oaunos and against the MCIAA for the reconveynace of their propertiesbut was appealed by the latter and the earlier decision was reversed, the case went up to the CAbut the CA affirmed the reversed decision of the RTC.ISSUE:Whether or not the testimonials of the petitioners proving the promises, assurances andrepresentations by the airport officials and lawyers are inadmissible under the Statue of Frauds.HELD:The SC ruled that since the respondent didn’t object during trial to the admissibility ofpetitioner’s testimonial evidenc under the Statute of Frauds, it means then that they have waivedtheir objection and are now barred from raising the same. In any event, the Statute of Frauds isnot applicable herein. Consequently, petitioners’ pieces of evidence are admissible and should beduly given weight and credence, since the records tend to support that the MCIAA did not as theOuanos and Inocians posit, object the introduction of parole evidence to prove its commitment toallow the fromer landowners to repurchase their properties upon the occurrence of certain events.Page 488of 747
MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN ET. AL. V HON. SIMEON P. DUMDUM,JR. ET. ALG.R. NO. 168289, 22 MARCH 2010FACTS:Private respondent, Emily Rose Go Ko Lim Chao, who is engaged in buy and sellbusiness of surplus business, equipment machineries, spare parts and related supplies filed acomplaint for collection of sum of money, including damages against the petitioners,Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan and its ormer chief executive, Mayor Felix V. Ople in hisofficial and personal capacity. The private respondent claimed that because of Ople’s earnestrepresentation that funds had already been allowed for the project, she agreed to deliver from herpersonal principal business in Cebu City twenty-one motor vehicles whose valued totaled to5,820,000.00 php but the petitioners here instead filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that theclaim on which the action had been brought was unenforceable under the statute of frauds,pointing out that there was no written contract or document that would evince the supposedagreement they entered into with the respondent. The petitioners also filed for Motion to
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 747 pages?
- Fall '16