Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
Facts:
Issue:
Facts:
Facts:
The
National
Airports
Corporation
(NAC)
expropriated several adjoining lots in Cebu for the
construction of the Cebu Lahug Airport, but several
years later, the airport was closed and abandoned,
with a significant area of the land were then being used
for commercial purposes. The original owners filed an
action for reconveyance against the NACs successorin-interest, Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA), alleging that they are entitle to recover the
land since the purpose for which the lot was acquired
no longer existed. MCIAA argued that the trial courts
pronouncement in the expropriation case did not
contain a condition that the lots would revert to their
owners in case the airport would be abandoned.
Issue: Whether or not the lots should revert to their
original owners.
Held: Yes. While the trial court in Civil Case No. R-1881
could have simply acknowledged the presence of
public purpose for the exercise of eminent domain
regardless of the survival of Lahug Airport, the trial
court in its Decision chose not to do so but instead
prefixed its finding of public purpose upon its
understanding that "Lahug Airport will continue to be in
operation." Verily, these meaningful statements in the
body of the Decision warrant the conclusion that the
expropriated properties would remain to be so until it
was confirmed that Lahug Airport was no longer "in
operation". This inference further implies two (2)
things: (a) after the Lahug Airport ceased its
undertaking as such and the expropriated lots were not
being used for any airport expansion project, the rights
vis--vis the expropriated Lots Nos. 916 and 920 as
between the State and their former owners, petitioners
Facts:
Hawaiian-Philippine Co. (HPC) entered into a
contract with Song Fo &Co (SFC) whereby it would
deliver molasses to the latter. HPC had delivered
55,006 gallons of molasses until it stopped delivery,
prompting SFC to sue the former for breach of contract.
In its defense, HPC said that SFC delayed in paying
hence it had the right to rescind the contract.
Issue: