Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF TIMOTEO MORENO v. MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168770 2011-02-09	ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Except for the names of the parties and the specific lot designation involved, the relevant factual antecedents which gave rise to these consolidated petitions are, for the most part, as set forth in the Court's Decision[4] of October 15, 2003, as reiterated in a Resolution[5] dated August 9, 2005, in G.R. No. 156273 entitled Heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (Heirs of Moreno), and in other earlier related cases.[6]
	GR No. 174012 2008-11-14	MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. BENJAMIN TUDTUD CARPIO MORALES, J.
To prove their claim, respondents presented witnesses who testified that the NAC promised their predecessors-in-interest-original owners of Lot No. 988 that it would be returned to them should the expansion of the Cebu Lahug Airport not materialize.[6] And respondents invoked this Court's ruling in MCIAA v. Court of Appeals[7] involving another lot acquired by the NAC for the expansion of the Cebu Lahug Airport. In that case, although the deed of sale between the therein respondent Melba Limbaco's predecessor-in-interest and NAC did not contain a provision for the repurchase of the therein subject lot should the purpose for its acquisition ceased to exist, this Court allowed Melba Limbaco to recover the lot based on parole evidence that the NAC promised the right of repurchase to her predecessor-in-interest.[8]
	GR No. 174011 2008-04-14	AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. ANGELES URGELLO TONGOY CORONA, J.
The indisputable certainty in the present case is that there was a prior promise by the predecessor of the respondent that the expropriated properties may be recovered by the former owners once the airport is transferred to Mactan, Cebu. In fact, the witness for the respondent testified that 15 lots were already reconveyed to their previous owners.[18] MCIAA v. CA[19] and ATO v. Gopuco[20] cited by petitioners are not applicable here. In MCIAA, the previous owner failed to prove that there was a compromise settlement.[21] In ATO, the previous owner was not a party to the compromise agreements.[22]
	GR NO. 172799 2007-07-06	JOHNSON v. JOHNSON OFFICE TINGA, J.
Moreover, a reading of a court's judgment must not be confined to the dispositive portion alone; rather, it should be meaningfully construed in unanimity with the ratio decidendi thereof to grasp the true intent and meaning of a decision.[15] A reading of the Resolution dated 14 December 2001 shows that after finding that respondents' termination was illegal, the NLRC held that they were entitled to reinstatement, thus:Having been illegally dismissed as comprehensively discussed above, complainants-appellants are normally entitled to reinstatement to their respective former positions without loss of seniority rights and privileges and to payment of backwages and other benefits.
	GR NO. 144570 2005-09-21	VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL v. JOSE J. CAFE
We do not agree that petitioner should be held liable for damages. It is not sound public policy to put a premium on the right to litigate where such right is exercised in good faith, albeit erroneously.[46] The alleged bad faith of petitioner was never established. The special circumstances in Article 2208 of the Civil Code justifying the award of attorney's fees are not present in this case.