CASE DIGEST: Vda. de Ouano vs. Republic

G.R. No. 168770 : February 9, 2011

ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO, MARIO P. OUANO, LETICIA OUANO ARNAIZ, and CIELO OUANO MARTINEZ,Petitioners, v. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF CEBU, Respondents.

FACTS:

In 1949, the National Airport Corporation (NAC), MCIAA’s predecessor agency, pursued a program to expand the Lahug Airport in Cebu City. Through its team of negotiators, NAC met and negotiated with the owners of the properties situated around the airport.

The landowners claim the government negotiating team, as a sweetener, assured them that they could repurchase their respective lands should the Lahug Airport expansion project do not push through or once the Lahug Airport closes or its operations transferred to Mactan-Cebu Airport.

On February 8, 1996, Ricardo L. Inocian and four others (all children of Isabel Limbaga who originally owned six [6] of the lots expropriated); and Aletha Suico Magat and seven others, successors-in-interest of Santiago Suico, the original owner of two (2) of the condemned lots (collectively, the Inocians), filed before the RTC in Cebu City a complaint for reconveyance of real properties and damages against MCIAA. The RT rendered a decision directing MCIAA to reconvey the lands.

Soon after the MCIAA jettisoned the Lahug Airport expansion project, informal settlers entered and occupied Lot No. 763-A which, before its expropriation, belonged to the Ouanos.

Soon after the MCIAA jettisoned the Lahug Airport expansion project, informal settlers entered and occupied Lot No. 763-A which, before its expropriation, belonged to the Ouanos. The Ouanos then formally asked to be allowed to exercise their right to repurchase the aforementioned lot, but the MCIAA ignored the demand.

The RTC dismissed the Ouanos’ complaint for reconveyance. The CA denied their appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonial evidence of the petitioners proving the promises, assurances and representations by the airport officials and lawyers are inadmissbale under the Statute of Frauds.

HELD:

The petition is meritorious.

CIVIL LAW: Condominium and Subdivision

Under the rule on the Statute of Frauds, as expressed in Article 1403 of the Civil Code, a contract for the sale or acquisition of real property shall be unenforceable unless the same or some note of the contract be in writing and subscribed by the party charged. Subject to defined exceptions, evidence of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or secondary evidence of its contents.

MCIAA’s 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.

Petition is GRANTED.