G.R. No. 166429 ; February 1, 2006
Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon, et al.

FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Government) against the Supreme Court’s Decision dated December 19, 2005. That prior Decision directed the Government to pay Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) the sum of Php 3,002,125,000 as provisional compensation under Republic Act No. 8974 to acquire a writ of possession over the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal 3 (NAIA 3). In its Motion, the Government argues that PIATCO’s right to compensation is diminished by alleged unpaid obligations to its contractors, Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, who claim significant liens on the terminal. The Government fears that paying PIATCO directly may leave the expropriated asset burdened with unresolved claims, effectively granting PIATCO a windfall while the Government inherits a terminal with liabilities exceeding its value.

ISSUE

Whether the alleged unliquidated claims and liens of third-party contractors against PIATCO constitute a valid legal basis to reverse the Court’s prior directive for the Government to pay PIATCO the provisional compensation to gain possession of NAIA 3.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Partial Reconsideration with finality. The legal logic is clear: the alleged claims of Takenaka and Asahikosan are not yet judicially established facts and thus cannot overturn a final directive based on settled law. The Court emphasized that the conclusive ruling from Agan v. PIATCO established PIATCO, as the builder, must be justly compensated for the Government to take over the facilities. The payment mechanism under R.A. 8974 involves a provisional compensation precisely to allow the Government immediate possession, subject to final determination of just compensation in subsequent proceedings. The alleged foreign judgment in favor of the contractors is not automatically conclusive in Philippine jurisdiction, as it can be challenged on grounds like want of jurisdiction or being contrary to public policy. These unproven contractual claims between PIATCO and other entities are separate from the expropriation proceeding and must be ventilated in the appropriate judicial forums. They do not affect the Government’s obligation to comply with the expropriation law’s procedure to secure possession. The motions for intervention filed by the contractors and a legislator were also denied for being belated and because their interests could be pursued in other extant proceedings.