G.R. No. 156273. August 9, 2005.
HEIRS OF TIMOTEO MORENO and MARIA ROTEA, et al., Petitioners, vs. MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Respondent.

FACTS

In 1949, the National Airport Corporation (NAC), predecessor of respondent Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), sought to acquire the petitioners’ lots in Lahug, Cebu, for airport expansion. The owners refused the offered price. The government then filed an expropriation case. During negotiations, NAC guaranteed the landowners, including petitioners’ predecessors, the right to repurchase the properties for the same price paid by the government if the lands ceased to be used for airport purposes. The lots were subsequently taken by the state.
Decades later, the airport operations were transferred to a new location, and the old Lahug Airport lands, including the subject lots, were no longer used for their original public purpose. MCIAA, which had assumed ownership, leased portions of the land to other government entities. The heirs of the original owners sought to enforce the repurchase right, leading to a legal battle for reconveyance.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether the petitioners retained a valid right to repurchase the expropriated lots after the public use for which they were taken had ceased, and if so, at what price the reconveyance should be made.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied MCIAA’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the petitioners’ right to repurchase. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle of eminent domain: the government’s authority to take private property is contingent upon its continued use for a public purpose. Once that specific public use is abandoned or ceases, the former owner’s right to recover the property revives. This is rooted in the rationale that expropriation is not an absolute conveyance but a conditional one, limited by the stated public necessity.
The Court rejected MCIAA’s argument that the right to repurchase had been extinguished, emphasizing that the contractual guarantee made during the expropriation proceedings merely codified this inherent legal right and did not create a mere personal obligation that could prescribe. The nature of the right is a resolutory condition attached to the state’s ownership.
Regarding the repurchase price, the Court held it must be the original expropriation compensation paid to the owners, plus legal interest, not the current fair market value. This prevents the state from profiting from the appreciation in land value that occurred after it took the property. The increase in value is deemed a consequence of the state’s ownership and the cessation of the public use, not a windfall for the government at the expense of the original owner who was compelled to sell. The Court ordered the reconveyance subject to the petitioners reimbursing the original compensation with interest.