This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-02-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the stance of petitioners, this Court had ruled otherwise in Heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority,[9] thus-- | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| We are not unaware of the ruling in Heirs of Timoteo Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority,[19] concerning still another set of owners of lands which were declared expropriated in the judgment in Civil Case No. R-1881, but were ordered by the Court to be reconveyed to their previous owners because there was preponderant proof of the existence of the right of repurchase. However, we qualified our Decision in that case, thus:We adhere to the principles enunciated in Fery and in Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, and do not overrule them. Nonetheless the weight of their import, particularly our ruling as regards the properties of respondent Chiongbian in Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, must be commensurate to the facts that were established therein as distinguished from those extant in the case at bar. Chiongbian put forth inadmissible and inconclusive evidence, while in the instant case we have preponderant proof as found by the trial court of the existence of the right of repurchase in favor of petitioners.[20] (Emphasis provided) | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in Heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea v. MCIAA[17] involving lots similarly expropriated for the expansion of the same Lahug Airport, we recognized the right of the previous owners who were able to prove the commitment of the government to allow them to repurchase their land:The indisputable certainty in the present case is that there was a prior promise by the predecessor of the respondent that the expropriated properties may be recovered by the former owners once the airport is transferred to Mactan, Cebu. In fact, the witness for the respondent testified that 15 lots were already reconveyed to their previous owners.[18] MCIAA v. CA[19] and ATO v. Gopuco[20] cited by petitioners are not applicable here. In MCIAA, the previous owner failed to prove that there was a compromise settlement.[21] In ATO, the previous owner was not a party to the compromise agreements.[22] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We are not unaware of the ruling in Heirs of Timoteo Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority,[39] concerning still another set of owners of lots declared expropriated in the judgment in Civil Case No. R-1881. As with Chiongbian and the herein respondent, the owners of the lots therein did not appeal the judgment of expropriation, but subsequently filed a complaint for reconveyance. In ordering MCIAA to reconvey the said lots in their favor, we held that the predicament of petitioners therein involved a constructive trust "akin to the implied trust referred to in Art. 1454[40] of the Civil Code."[41] However, we qualified our Decision in that case, to the effect that, | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| ruling in Fery, as recently cited in Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[38] no rights to Lot No. 72, either express or implied, have been retained by the herein respondent. We are not unaware of the ruling in Heirs of Timoteo Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority,[39] concerning still another set of owners of lots declared expropriated in the judgment in Civil Case No. R-1881. As with Chiongbian and | |||||