G.R. No. 174012 November 14, 2008
G.R. No. 174012 November 14, 2008
G.R. No. 174012 November 14, 2008
174012
That nothing in the trial court's decision in Civil Case No. R-1881 indicates a
condition attached to the expropriation of the subject lot, this Court, in Heirs of
Timoteo Moreno v. MCIAA21 involving the rights of another former owner of
lots also involved in Civil Case No. R-1881, noting the following portion of the
body of the said trial court's decision:
As for the public purpose of the expropriation proceeding, it cannot now
be doubted. Although the Mactan Airport is being constructed, it does
not take away the actual usefulness and importance of the Lahug
Airport: it is handling the air traffic both civilian and military. From it
aircrafts fly to Mindanao and Visayas and pass through it on their return
flights to the North and Manila. Then, no evidence was adduced to show
how soon is the Mactan Airport to be placed in operation and whether
the Lahug Airport will be closed immediately thereafter. It is for the other
departments of the Government to determine said matters. The Court
cannot substitute its judgment for those of the said departments and
agencies. In the absence of such a showing, the Court will presume that
the Lahug Airport will continue to be in operation,22
held:
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--visthe expropriated Lots Nos. 916 and 920 as
between the State and their former owners, petitioners herein, must be
equitably adjusted; and, (b) the foregoing
unmistakable declarations in the body of the Decision should
merge with and become an intrinsic part of the fallo thereofwhich
for the sale of real property or an interest therein within the coverage of the
Statute of Frauds.
The Statute of Frauds applies, however, only to executory contracts.31 It does
not apply to contracts which have been completely or partially performed,32 the
rationale thereof being as follows:
x x x In executory contracts there is a wide field for fraud because
unless they be in writing there is no palpable evidence of the intention of
the contracting parties. The statute has precisely been enacted to
prevent fraud. However, if a contract has been totally or partially
performed, the exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad
faith, for it would enable the defendant to keep the benefits already
delivered by him from the transaction in litigation, and, at the same time,
evade the obligations, responsibilities or liabilities assumed or
contracted by him thereby.33(Underscoring supplied)
A word on MCIAA's argument that MCIAA v. Court of Appeals, supra, does not
apply to the present case. As reflected in the earlier-quoted ruling in Fery, the
mode of acquisition for public purpose of a land - whether by expropriation or
by contract - is not material in determining whether the acquisition is with or
without condition.
In fine, the decision in favor of respondents must be affirmed. The rights and
duties between the MCIAA and respondents are governed by Article 1190 of
the Civil Code34 which provides:
When the conditions have for their purpose the extinguishment of an
obligation to give, the parties, upon the fulfillment of said conditions,
shall return to each other what they have received.
In case of the loss, deterioration, or improvement of the thing, the
provisions which, with respect to the debtor, are laid down in the
preceding article [Article 1189] shall be applied to the party who is
bound to return.
xxxx