ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 147728, November 14, 2001]

MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. EUGENIO V. AMORES et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder, for your information , is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 14 2001.

G.R. No. 147728 (Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Eugenio V. Amores as Attorney-in-fact of Generoso Lopez.)

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 26, 2000 in CA-G.R. CV No. 60574 affirming the decision of Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-12939 ordering the petitioner to reconvey to the respondent Lot No. 948-A upon payment by the latter to the former of the repurchase price in the amount of Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Four Pesos (P4,374.00).

The pertinent facts are as follows:

Sometime in 1950, the National Airport Corporation (NAC), with the purpose of expanding the then operating and existing Lahug Airport, purchased several lots adjacent to the said airport. Among those bought by NAC was Lot No. 948-A then owned by respondent's predecessors-in-interest, the heirs of Aniano Ouano. The sale was made upon the condition that the vendor shall have the right to repurchase the property at the same selling price of Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Four Pesos (P 4,374.00) without interest if the expansion of the Lahug Airport does not materialize. This right to repurchase was allegedly contained in a supplemental agreement that was unfortunately lost and could no longer be found. In 1954, Lot No. 948-A was sold by the heirs of Aniano Ouano to respondent. The contract of sale between the parties stipulated the existence of the right to repurchase Lot No. 948-A from NAC. When Lahug Airport was closed and transferred to Mactan, respondent sought the reconveyance of Lot No. 948-A. Petitioner, however, refused to reconvey Lot No. 948-A. Respondent thus filed a Complaint for Reconveyance and Damages with Application for Preliminary Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-12939 and assigned to Branch 9 of the RTC of Cebu City. In its Answer with Counterclaim, the petitioner claimed that contrary to the allegation of respondent, the sale of the said lot by the heirs of Aniano Ouano to NAC was absolute and not subject to repurchase by the vendor upon the happening of a resolutory condition which was the closure of the Lahug Airport. Petitioner also raised the defense of res judicata. It pointed out that a previously decided case-Civil Case No. CEB-8029 bars Civil Case No. CEB-12939.

Upon the directive of the lower court, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. In an order dated May 28, 1993, the lower court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss for the reason that the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No. CEB-8029 makes no mention of Lot No. 948-A. Hence, there is nothing in the said decision that disposes of Lot No. 948-A. The petitioner questioned this order all the way to the Supreme Court to no avail.

Trial on the merits of Civil Case No. CEB-12939 ensued only after the matter of res judicata was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court against the petitioner. After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent after finding that both testimonial and documentary evidence support the conclusion that there was indeed such a rider allowing the repurchase of Lot No. 948-A by the vendor if the planned expansion of the Lahug Airport does not materialize. Petitioner appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals which initially reversed the decision of the RTC. However, upon respondent's motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reversed its initial decision and affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed this petition contending in sum that: (1) the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-8029 did not constitute res judicata so as to bar re-litigation of the issue of the existence of the right to repurchase Lot No. 948-A in Civil Case No. CEB-12939; and (2) both the Court of Appeals and the RTC erred in finding that there was preponderance of evidence to establish the existence of a rider in the contract of sale between the heirs of Aniano Ouano and NAC allowing the repurchase of Lot No. 948-A.

We find no reversible error in the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals.

That the sale of Lot No. 948-A by respondent's predecessors-in-interest to NAC was subject to the right of repurchase is a finding of fact of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals. We adhere to the established rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the parties and carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court. ¹ Borromeo v. Sun, 317 SCRA 176, 182 (1999); Compania Maritima, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 169, 177 (1999).Indeed, we find no reason to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below because the assailed findings are not tainted with capriciousness and palpable error. ² David v. Manila Bulletin Publishing Co., G.R. No.139272, December 5, 2000.Furthermore, our ruling in the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals, et al., ³ 263 SCRA 736 (1996).lends credence to such factual finding. In the said case where we upheld the right of repurchase of one of the lot owners who also sold her lots to NAC during the proposed expansion of the Lahug Airport, we observed that:

"We see no reason, however, why Inez should be considered as not similarly situated as the owners of these other lots. All these lots surround the Lahug Airport and were acquired by the government for the proposed expansion of the airport. The appellee has not presented any evidence to show that Inez' lots were acquired for a different purpose or under different conditions. Why then should the sale of such lots be singled out as not subject to the right to repurchase when a good number of lots around them were already repurchased by their original owners?" ⁴ Id., p.741.

The same may be said of herein respondent who continues to be refused reconveyance of his land despite the fact that as of present thirty nine (39) lots surrounding the now defunct Lahug Airport have already been returned to their original owners.

Anent the issue of res judicata, we reiterate herein the established doctrine that for the purpose of res judicata, the dispositive part of a judgment controls expressions made in the body of the opinion. ⁵ Romero, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 40 SCRA 172, 179 (1971).Hence, we find no reason to differ with the ruling of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-8029 is not a bar to Civil Case No. CEB-12939 as the dispositive portion of the said judgment makes no mention of Lot No. 948-A.

Finally, the issue of res judicata has already been laid to rest in a resolution promulgated by no less than this Court in G.R. No. 120215 denying petitioner's petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking the dismissal of Civil Case No. CEB-12939 on the ground of res judicata for lack of merit. The said resolution is tantamount to a final disposition of the issue of res judicata because when a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for lack of merit, the challenged decision or order, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions are deemed sustained. ⁶ Zebra Security Agency and Allied Services v. NLRC, 270 SCRA 476, 484 (1997).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE