Scribd
Upload
115 views1 page

Ato Mciaa V Gopuco

The respondent owned land near an airport that was expropriated by the government to expand the airport. When a new airport opened, the original airport closed and the respondent sought recovery of his land. The Supreme Court held that since the government acquired the land in fee simple unconditionally through expropriation, abandoning the original public use did not result in the land reverting to the original owner. As the expropriation decree did not contain conditions allowing recovery if the use changed, the respondent had no legal claim to the recovered land. Eminent domain allows the government to acquire private property for public use as long as just compensation is provided.

Uploaded by

Cherry Sormillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
115 views1 page

Ato Mciaa V Gopuco

The respondent owned land near an airport that was expropriated by the government to expand the airport. When a new airport opened, the original airport closed and the respondent sought recovery of his land. The Supreme Court held that since the government acquired the land in fee simple unconditionally through expropriation, abandoning the original public use did not result in the land reverting to the original owner. As the expropriation decree did not contain conditions allowing recovery if the use changed, the respondent had no legal claim to the recovered land. Eminent domain allows the government to acquire private property for public use as long as just compensation is provided.

Uploaded by

Cherry Sormillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

86.

ATO v Gopuco

ATO & MCIAA v. GOPUCO


G.R. No. 158563, June 30, 2005

FACTS: Respondent was the owner of Lot No. 72 located in the vicinity of the Lahug Airport in Cebu City.
The National Airport Corporation (replaced with the Civil Aeronautics Administration) informed the
owners of the various lots surrounding the Lahug Airport, including respondent, that the government was
acquiring their lands for purposes of expansion. The CAA then instituted expropriation proceedings
before the CFI which decreed the expropriation of the subject lots, including Lot No. 72. Subsequently,
when the Mactan International Airport commenced operations, the Lahug Airport was ordered closed by
then President Corazon Aquino. Lot No. 72 was thus abandoned, prompting respondent to seek the
recovery of his lot with an offer to return the money he previously received as payment. Respondent’s
complaint for recovery of Lot No. 72 against petitioners was dismissed by the RTC but said decision was
reversed by the CA on appeal.

ISSUE: When private land is expropriated for a particular public use, and that particular public use is
abandoned, does its former owner acquire a cause of action for recovery of the property?

HELD: The answer depends upon the character of the title acquired by the expropriator. If land is
expropriated for a particular purpose, with the condition that when that purpose is ended or abandoned
the property shall return to its former owner, then, of course, when the purpose is terminated or
abandoned the former owner reacquires the property so expropriated. However, when land has been
acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by
purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned or the
land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any
reversion to the former owner.

As already held by the SC in an earlier case 1, the terms of the judgment in the expropriation
proceedings are clear and unequivocal and granted title in fee simple to the Republic of the Philippines.
There was no condition imposed to the effect that the lot would return to the original owner or that said
original owner had a right to repurchase the same if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended or
abandoned or if the property was t be used other than as the Lahug Airport.Thus, no rights to Lot No.
72, either express or implied, have been retained by respondent. The trial court was
correct in denying respondent’s claim for the reconveyance of Lot No. 72 in his favor.

Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government that
may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the
State. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminent domain remains in the government which
has the right to resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest so requires it. The only
direct constitutional qualification is that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

You might also like