Vda de Ouano v.

Republic of the Philippines

Petitioner (Ouanos & Inocians):

- Seeks to nullify the decision of the CA and compel the Republic of the Philippines and/or
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) to reconvey to the Ouanos a parcel of
land
- The claimants sought to have the condemned lots reconveyed to them upon the payment of
the condemnation price since the public purpose of the expropriation was never met, in fact
it was never used and were abandoned by the expropriating government agencies
- They were assured by National Airport Corporation’s (NAC) negotiating team that they
would be entitled to repurchase in the event that they are no longer used for airport
purposes

Respondent (Republic):
- The lots in question was covered by civil case R-1881 where the decision did not expressly
contain any condition on the matter of repurchase and does not have any reversionary
condition
- MCIAA argued that the claim of the Ouanos and Inocians regarding the alleged verbal
assurance of the NAC negotiating team that they can reacquire their landholdings is barred
by the Statute of Frauds (it should be in writing and subscribed by the party in charge)

Court Ruling:
- ***Statute of Frauds does not apply because it is only for executory contracts and not to
completed, executed, or partially consummated contracts. Also, the objection on the
admissibility of evidence on the basis of the Statute of Frauds may be waived if not timely
raised. Records support that MCIAA did not object to the introduction of parol evidence to
prove its commitment to allow the former landowners to repurchase their respective
properties upon the occurrence of certain events
- In expropriation, the private owner is deprived of property against his will. The mandatory
requirement of due process ought to be strictly followed and the state must show a genuine
need in exacting a public purpose to take the private property at the minimum.
- The concept of public use includes “usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive
of general benefit of the public”. If the genuine public necessity (the reason or condition)
allowing the expropriation of a private land ceases or disappears, then there is no more
point in the government’s retention of the expropriated land.
o This also holds if the government devotes the property to another public use that is
very different from the original or deviates from the declared purpose to benefit
another private person
o The direct use by the state of its power to oblige landowners to renounce their
productive possession to another citizen for that citizen’s own private gain is
offensive to our laws
- A condemnor should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the
petition for expropriation, failing this, it should file another petition for the new purpose. If
not, it is necessary that the condemnor should return the said property to its private owner
if the owner so desires
o The government cannot keep the property it expropriated in any manner it pleases
and dishonor the judgement of expropriation because this does not keep the idea of
fair play
- Equity and justice demand the reconveyance by MCIAA of the lands to the Ouanos and
Inocians while dictating the Ouanos and Inocians to return to MCIAA what they received as
compensation for the expropriation as well as the legal interest