Air Transportation Office v. Gapuco Jr. Case Digest

Topic: Limitations on the Right of Ownership

Facts:

Apolonio Gopuco, Jr. was the owner of a 995-square meter lot in the vicinity of the Lahug Airport. It was expropriated by the government in 1949 for expansion. Gopuco refused to sell his land, but the CFI declared the sale a valid exercise of the expropriation powers of the State.

When the Mactan International Airport commenced operations, the Lahug Airport was ordered closed by then President Corazon C. Aquino in 1989. Gopuco wanted his land returned to him, so he offered to buy it back with the money paid to him.

In the same year, Congress passed Republic Act No. 6958 creating the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and in part providing for the transfer of the assets of the Lahug Airport thereto.

Gopuco claimed that he was offered a compromise settlement whereby he was assured that the expropriated lot would be resold to him for the same price as when it was expropriated in the event that the Lahug Airport would be abandoned. But he did not give any proof regarding this.

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?

Ruling:

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.

If upon the contrary, however, the decree of expropriation gives to the entity a fee simple title, then of course, the land becomes the absolute property of the expropriator, whether it be the State, a province, or municipality, and in that case the non-user does not have the effect of defeating the title acquired by the expropriation proceedings.

Gopuco argues that there is present, in cases of expropriation, an “implied contract” that the properties will be used only for the public purpose for which they were acquired. No such contract exists.