G.R. No. L-47207 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-47207 September 25, 1980

Jose Escano, etc., petitioners-appellants

vs Court of Appeals and Republic of the Philippines, respondent-appellees

Ponente: Aquino

Facts:

Petitioners complain about the judgment of the CA, engrafting conditions on their repurchase of 10 lots, which were expropriated to form part of the Lahug Airport in Cebu City, as well as failure of the Appellate Court to grant them compensation for the use of the lots by the Civil Aeronautics Administration from the time that they tendered the redemption price.

Those lots were sold by Mamerto Escano to the Republic for use by the CCA. The sale was subjected to the condition that when CCA would no longer use the lots as airport, the title thereto would revert to the seller upon reimbursement of the price without interest. By means of 2 deeds of assignment, the petitioners became the successors of Mamerto Escano.

Then later, after CCA used the lots, petitioners made on a written tender to the CCA of the repurchase price. But Director of Civil Aviation rejected the tender for the reason that the lots were still used for general aviation.

So petitioners sued the RP CCA in CFI of Cebu for the reconveyance of the ten lots. The trial court ordered CCa to reconvey the petitioners. Petitioners appealed because the lower court did not award to them the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the lots from the time that they tendered the redemption price. The government appealed because it believed that the condition had not yet materialized.

CA affirmed the trial court's judgment but went further on the conditions like tax and rental fees. Petitioners appealed.

Held:

CA erred in imposing the said conditions on the reconveyance.

The fact that the contract of sale does not mention those conditions means that they were never within the contemplation of the parties. The Court of Appeals, in gratuitously imposing those conditions, made a new contract for them.

We hold that, while petitioners' claim for compensation may be justified on the ground that the CAA should have reconveyed the ten lots upon the tender of the redemption price, nevertheless, it would seem to be inequitable to require the CAA to pay compensation when it had not derived any benefit from the lots.