Case Digest (G.R. No. 162288)
Facts:
Mactan‑Cebu International Airport Authority, Department of Public Works and Highways, and Air Transportation Office v. Milagros Urgello, G.R. No. 162288, April 04, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Milagros Urgello owned Lot No. 913‑E (TCT No. 10873), which had been subdivided into Lots 913‑E‑1 to 913‑E‑4. In the 1950s the then Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire Lot 913‑E‑3 for the planned expansion of Lahug Airport. By a judgment based on a compromise (July 27, 1964), the CAA agreed to purchase Lot 913‑E‑3 for P3,105.00 subject to a resolutory condition: if the Republic ceased to use the lot as an airport, title would revert to Urgello or her heirs upon reimbursement of the purchase price; Urgello executed a Conditional Deed of Sale that was annotated on her title.
After Mactan Airport commenced operations in 1966, use of Lahug Airport declined. In 1983 the Bureau of Air Transportation (BAT, later ATO) leased several parcels including Lot 913‑E‑3 to the Ministry/Department of Public Works and Highways (MPWH/DPWH). Fences were erected and portions of Lots 913‑E‑2 and 913‑E‑4 were enclosed, prompting Urgello to file an injunction (RTC Civil Case No. CEB‑3908, 1983) and, later, a reconveyance suit against BAT/ATO (CEB‑4115, 1985) after she tendered the P3,105 repurchase price. MPWH/DPWH filed an eminent domain complaint (CEB‑4541) affecting Lot 913‑E‑4.
Branch 6, RTC, in Civil Case No. CEB‑4115 (Decision Jan. 3, 1989) ordered reconveyance of Lot 913‑E‑3 upon payment of P3,105.00. Thereafter, on January 17, 1990 the parties executed a Compromise Agreement (approved by the RTC on Jan. 21, 1991 in CEB‑3908) providing inter alia for DPWH to demolish a fence on Lot 913‑E‑2 and to purchase Lot 913‑E‑4‑A and Lot 913‑E‑3 at agreed prices; the agreement included mutual waivers and withdrawal of the eminent domain case. DPWH failed to perform; a writ of execution issued in 1993 was unenforced. Urgello thus filed, on October 15, 1996, a Complaint for Reconveyance with damages and other reliefs against DPWH and ATO (CEB‑19418), later amending to implead Mactan‑Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) as defendant.
By Decision dated March 10, 1999, Branch 22, RTC ordered DPWH, MCIAA, and ATO to solidarily reconvey Lot 913‑E‑3 without need of paying the repurchase price (finding it already paid), to return Lots 913‑E‑2 and 913‑E‑4, to pay rentals dating from specified periods, to demolish the fence, and to pay attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed by decision of February 17, 2004. Petitioners (MCIAA, DPWH, ATO / Republic of the Philippines as appellant below) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing among others that respondent’s money claims should have been filed with the Commission on Audit, that MCIAA did not assume ATO’s obligations and thus is not obliged to reconvey or pay rentals, and that MCIAA is not obliged to demolish the fence. The Supreme Court fixed the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6958 (MCIAA charter) to Novemb...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Must respondent’s money claim against the government be filed with the Commission on Audit as a prerequisite to judicial relief?
- Did Republic Act No. 6958 (MCIAA charter) transfer Lot No. 913‑E‑3 and make MCIAA successor‑in‑interest to the Air Transportation Office (ATO) so that MCIAA assumed ATO’s obligation to reconvey?
- Are petitioners solidarily liable to reconvey Lot No. 913‑E‑3, to return Lots 913‑E‑2 and 913‑E‑4, to pay rentals and attorney’s fees, and to demolish the fence?
- From what date is MCIAA liable for rentals on Lot No. 913‑E‑3 — i.e., what is the effectivit...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)