GR 139495; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139495 ; November 27, 2000
MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and VIRGINIA CHIONGBIAN, respondents.
FACTS
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Civil Aeronautics Administration, filed an expropriation case in 1952 for the expansion of Lahug Airport, which included Lot 941. Respondent Virginia Chiongbian purchased the lot during the pendency of the case. In 1961, a final judgment was rendered condemning the lot and ordering payment of compensation to Chiongbian, which she accepted without appeal. Absolute title was transferred to the Republic. With the creation of petitioner Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) under R.A. No. 6958 , the assets of Lahug Airport, including Lot 941, were transferred to it. After the Lahug Airport was closed in 1991, Chiongbian filed a complaint for reconveyance, alleging a verbal agreement with government agents that she could repurchase the lot if it ceased to be used as an airport.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Virginia Chiongbian has a legal right to repurchase or seek reconveyance of the expropriated Lot 941.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of expropriation judgments and the principle of relativity of contracts. The 1961 expropriation judgment was unconditional and final as to Chiongbian, who accepted the compensation without appeal. A final judgment of expropriation vests title in the government irrevocably, absent any contractual or statutory reservation of a right of repurchase. Chiongbian’s claim of a verbal repurchase agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, as it concerns an interest in land. Furthermore, she cannot derive rights from a separate compromise agreement entered into by other landowners in their appealed case, as she was not a party to that appeal or to those contracts. A compromise agreement is a contract binding only on the consenting parties. Thus, Chiongbian, not being a signatory, cannot invoke its terms. The closure of the airport does not automatically revert ownership, as the expropriated property was absorbed into the public domain for a public purpose, which subsequently evolved but did not constitute a discontinuance of that purpose under the circumstances presented.