NEWS COMMENTARIES

PHILSTAR HOME | THE PHILIPPINE STAR | INTERAKSYON | PILIPINO STAR NGAYON | THE FREEMAN | PANG-MASA |

BANAT | BUSINESSWORLD

HOME HEADLINES OPINION NATION WORLD BUSINESS SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT

LIFESTYLE OTHER SECTIONS

No cause of action
A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) - Jose C. Sison () - April 30, 2008 - 12:00am

Will the non-use of the property for the purpose for which it was expropriated result in the re-
conveyance of said property to its former owner? This is the question raised in this case of the heirs
of Lina and Julio.

The properties involved here were covered by several Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) four of which
were registered in the name of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and the
Republic. The said properties were acquired by the Civil Aeronautics Board on December 29, 1961 in
an expropriation proceeding for the expansion and improvement of the Lahug Airport.

On November 29, 1989 however, Lahug Airport was ordered closed, abandoned and all its functions M
and operations were transferred to MCIAA after its creation in 1990 pursuant to R.A. 6958.
Ma
On July 6, 1999, the heirs of Julio and Lina filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for
against MCIAA and several other defendants who allegedly succeeded in fraudulently reconstituting box
the titles over the subject land owned by their predecessor in interest and in selling them to other eve
persons. Hence they asked for recovery of ownership and declaration of nullity of the TCTs including we
the said four TCTs registered in the name of MCIAA and the Republic. The heirs contended that the Arg
said properties covered by the four TCTs which were expropriated in connection with the operation of on
the Lahug Airport should be reconveyed to the real owners considering that the purpose for which the
properties were expropriated is no longer relevant in view of the closure of the Lahug Airport. BO

MA
In its answer, MCIAA denied the allegations of the
complaint and by way of affirmative defense
moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack
of cause of action and that the action was barred De
by prescription and laches. The RTC granted its
his
motion. But on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
 reversed and set aside the order of the RTC. Osc
ahe
According to the CA, only the factual allegations bet
of the complaint must be considered in the Arg
resolution of a motion to dismiss based on failure
to state a cause of action. The CA held that the
BO
complaint alleged ultimate facts constituting the
OS
heirs’ cause of action. Furthermore the CA said that whether the heirs have a right to recover
ownership of said properties or whether the action is barred by prescription or laches requires
evidentiary proof which cannot be threshed out in a motion to dismiss but in a full blown trial. Hence,
it remanded the case to the RTC for trial on the merits. Was the CA correct?

No. A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. Its
elements are the following: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the
defendant; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, every court must not only consider the
Pa
factual allegations of the complaint but also the statutes and decisions material and relevant to the
proper appreciation of the questions before it. It must take judicial notice among others, of the
th
official acts of the Judicial Departments particularly decisions of the SC (Section 1, Rule 129 of the Ma
Rules of Court). sho
yes
In this case the CA failed to consider the decision of the SC in Mactan-Cebu International Airport vs.
Wil
Court of Appeals (399 Phils. 695) where it granted title over the expropriated land to the Republic of
the Philippines in fee simple without any condition that it would be returned to the owners or that the
MA
owners had a right to repurchase the same if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended or
abandoned or if the property was used other than as the Lahug Airport. When the land has been
acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by 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 W
land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any
reversion to the former owner. Box
wa
Had the CA considered the import of the ruling in Mactan Cebu International Airport vs. Court of wit
Appeals, it would have found that the heirs can invoke no right against MCIAA since the subject lands the
were acquired by the Sate in fee simple. Thus the first element of a cause of action, i.e., plaintiff’s Phe
legal right, is not present in the instant case (Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs.
Heirs of Marcelina L. Sero, et. al. G.R. No. 174672, April 16, 2008).
FIL

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are
now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net

AIRPORT COURT OF APPEALS MSORMAL PLACE PLACENAME PLACETYPE

S O SO C S