ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO.

168770, 9 FEBRUARY 2011 FACTS: In 1949, the National Airport Corporation (NAC), MCIAAs predecessor agency pursued a program to expand the Lahug Airport in Cebu City. As an assurance from the government, there is a promise of reconveyance or repurchase of said property so long as Lahug ceases its operation or transfer its operation to Mactan Cebu Airport. Some owners refused to sell, and that the Civil Aeronautics Administration filed a complaint for the expropriation of said properties for the expansion of the Lahug Airport. The trial court then declared said properties to be used upon the expansion of said projects and order for just compensation to the land owners, at the same time directed the latter to transfer certificate or ownership or title in the name of the plaintiff. At the end of 1991, Lahug Airport completely ceased its operation while the MactanCebu airport opened to accommodate incoming and outgoing commercial flights. This then prompted the land owners to demand for the reconveynace of said properties being expropriated by the trial court under the power of eminent domain. Hence these two consolidated cases arise. In G.R. No. 168812 MCIAA is hereby ordered by court to reconvey said properties to the land owners plus attorneys fee and cost of suit, while in G.R. No. 168770, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners Oaunos and against the MCIAA for the reconveynace of their properties but was appealed by the latter and the earlier decision was reversed, the case went up to the CA but the CA affirmed the reversed decision of the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonials of the petitioners proving the promises, assurances and representations by the airport officials and lawyers are inadmissible under the Statue of Frauds. HELD: The SC ruled that since the respondent didnt object during trial to the admissibility of petitioners testimonial evidence under the Statute of Frauds, it means then that they have waived their objection and are now barred from raising the same. In any event, the Statute of Frauds is not applicable herein. Consequently, petitioners pieces of evidence are admissible and should be duly given weight and credence, since the records tend to support that the MCIAA did not as the Ouanos and Inocians posit, object the introduction of parole evidence to prove its commitment to allow the former landowners to repurchase their properties upon the occurrence of certain events. MCIAAs invocation of the Statute of Frauds is misplaced primarily because the statute applies only to executory and not to completed, executed, or partially consummated contracts.