Title
Supreme Court
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 139495
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2000
Lot 941, expropriated for Lahug Airport, was claimed by Chiongbian for reconveyance after airport closure. SC ruled no repurchase agreement existed, upholding absolute government title.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 139495)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Property and Ownership History
    • Lot 941 (13,766 sq. m.) in Lahug, Cebu City, originally covered by TCT No. 120366 in MCIAA’s name.
    • During WWII, Lahug Airport was occupied by the U.S. Army; in 1947 turned over to the Philippine Government via Surplus Property Commission.
  • Chain of Title and Expropriation
    • Transferred sequentially to Bureau of Aeronautics, National Airports Corporation, and Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA).
    • On April 16, 1952, Republic of the Philippines (CAA) filed expropriation case No. R-1881 including Lot 941 for airport expansion.
  • Chiongbian’s Acquisition and Expropriation Judgment
    • In June 1953, Virginia Chiongbian purchased Lot 941 from Antonina Faborada for ₱8,000; TCT No. 9919 issued in her name.
    • December 29, 1961 judgment in R-1881 condemned Lot 941 to the Republic for ₱34,415 with interest from November 16, 1947; title transferred under TCT No. 27696.
  • Creation of MCIAA and Property Transfer
    • Republic Act No. 6958 (1990) created MCIAA; assets of Lahug Airport, including Lot 941, transferred by TCT No. 120366 (May 8, 1992).
    • Lahug Airport closed end of 1991; all operations moved to Mactan International Airport; Lot 941 remained unused.
  • Reconveyance Proceedings
    • July 24, 1995 – Chiongbian filed reconveyance suit (RTC CEB-17650) alleging a right of repurchase upon airport abandonment.
    • June 3, 1997 – RTC ordered MCIAA to reconvey Lot 941 upon reimbursement of expropriation price; CA affirmed.
    • MCIAA’s petition for review raised grounds on Statute of Frauds, parol evidence, Limbaco applicability, and co-defendants’ compromise judgments.
    • Chiongbian challenged petition’s certification of non-forum shopping, claiming signatory lacked authority.

Issues:

  • Procedural
    • Was the petition’s Verification and Certification against forum shopping valid?
  • Substantive
    • Did the abandonment of the public use for which Lot 941 was expropriated entitle Chiongbian to reacquire it?
    • Was there a valid repurchase agreement or reserved condition in the expropriation judgment?
    • Could parol evidence be admitted to prove or modify a judicial decision?
    • Are the rulings in Limbaco and co-defendants’ modified judgment in CA-G.R. No. 33045-R applicable to Chiongbian?
    • If a repurchase right exists, should it follow terms given to other landowners (₱34,415) or prevailing market value?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.