GR 174011; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174011 ; April 14, 2008
AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS and MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. ANGELES URGELLO TONGOY and the HEIRS OF PILAR U. ARCENAS, respondents.
FACTS
In 1963, the Republic initiated expropriation proceedings over respondents’ lots for the expansion of Lahug Airport in Cebu. The trial court ruled for the government. Pending appeal, the parties entered into a verbal compromise agreement wherein respondents agreed to withdraw their appeal in consideration of a commitment that, pursuant to an established policy, the lots would be resold to them at the original expropriation price if the airport was later abandoned. Respondents withdrew their appeal accordingly. The properties were registered in the government’s name, but the airport expansion did not materialize. Operations were eventually moved to Mactan Airbase, and portions of the land were leased or used for other government buildings.
Subsequently, respondents sought to repurchase the properties based on the government’s commitment, citing executive actions directing the closure of Lahug Airport. Their requests were met with equivocal responses from government agencies, stating no immediate plans for abandonment but acknowledging the policy to give priority to former owners upon disposal. After the management of the airport was transferred to petitioner Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) in 1990, respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and reconveyance in 1992.
ISSUE
Whether respondents were able to prove the existence of an oral compromise agreement entitling them to repurchase the expropriated lots.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower courts’ findings. The core issue was factual, and both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals uniformly found that respondents successfully proved the existence of the oral compromise agreement. Petitioners failed to rebut this evidence, as they did not present any testimonial or documentary evidence, cross-examine respondents’ witness, or submit a memorandum in the trial court.
The Court emphasized that factual findings of the lower courts, when supported by evidence, are binding. It cited the precedent in Heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea v. MCIAA, which involved similarly expropriated lots for the same airport, where the Court recognized the right of previous owners to repurchase based on a proven prior government promise. The Court distinguished the cases cited by petitioners (MCIAA v. CA and ATO v. Gopuco) on the ground that in those instances, the former owners either failed to prove such an agreement or were not parties to it. Consequently, respondents were entitled to recover ownership upon reimbursing the original just compensation.