Case Digest (G.R. No. 157557)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines (Civil Aeronautics Administration) v. Ramon Yu, Teofista Villamala, Lourdes Yu and Yu Se Peng, G.R. No. 157557, March 10, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.This dispute traces to expropriation and a later judicial nullification of a private sale. In Valdehueza v. Republic (1966) the Court affirmed the expropriation judgment over Lot No. 939 in Lahug, Cebu City and held the former owners’ remedy was monetary compensation rather than recovery of possession. Subsequently, the original owners (the Valdehuezas) sold the lot to respondents Ramon Yu et al. The sale was later annulled in the Court of Appeals decision in Yu v. Republic (CA-G.R. CV No. 01223, Oct. 30, 1986), which held the purchasers were not in good faith; that judgment became final and executory when not appealed.
On October 1, 1992 respondents instituted Civil Case No. CEB-12968 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Cebu City, seeking reversion of the expropriated Lot No. 939. The Republic, through the Civil Aeronautics Administration, answered denying respondents’ right to reacquire title on grounds including res judicata, lack of cause of action and forum-shopping. On November 16, 1995 the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA), in a decision penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar‑Fernando with Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Edgardo F. Sundiam concurring, reversed and set aside the RTC dismissal and remanded the case for determination on the merits (Decision dated December 2, 2002, CA-G.R. CV No. 53712).
The Republic sought review of the CA decision before the Court "for review on certiorari" (petition for certiorari), contesting the CA’s finding that res judicata did not bar respondents’ action and arguing respondents lacked legal personality to sue because the sale that supposedly c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court properly dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata?
- Did the abandonment of Lahug Airport and the return of other expropriated properties give respondents a new cause of action?
- Assuming there is a new cause of action, do respondents have a right to assert ow...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)