Case Citation: Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v.

Heirs of Sero
G.R. No. 174672

Date: April 16, 2008

Petitioners: Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority

Respondents: Heirs Of Marcelina L. Sero

Doctrine: While a trial court focuses on the factual allegations in a complaint, it cannot
disregard statutes and decisions material and relevant to the proper
appreciation of the questions before it. In resolving a motion to dismiss,
every court must take judicial notice of decisions the Supreme Court
has rendered as provided by Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.

Antecedent Facts: On July 6, 1999, respondents, through their attorney-in-fact Anecito Invento,
filed a complaint against several defendants for recovery of ownership and
declaration of nullity of several Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), four of
which are registered in the names of the petitioner Mactan-Cebu
International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and the Republic.

They alleged that the subject properties were owned by their predecessor
Ysabel Limbaga, but the Original Certificates of Title were lost during the
Second World War and that the mother of defendants pretended to be
"Isabel Limbaga" and fraudulently succeeded in reconstituting the titles over
the subject properties to her name and in selling some of them.

The subject properties were later acquired by the Civil Aeronautics

Administration (CAA) through expropriation proceedings for the expansion
and improvement of the Lahug Airport. Subsequently however, the Lahug
airport was ordered closed, and all its functions and operations were
transferred to petitioner MCIAA.

Petitioner’s Contention: Petitioner denied the allegations in the complaint and by way of special and
affirmative defenses moved for the dismissal of the complaint. Likewise,
defendants Ricardo Inocian, Haide Sun and spouses Victor Arcinas and
Marilyn Dueñas filed their separate motions to dismiss.

Respondent’s Contention: Respondents argue that the properties which were expropriated in
connection with the operation of the Lahug Airport should be reconveyed to
the real owners considering that the purpose for which the properties were
expropriated is no longer relevant in view of the closure of the Lahug
Airport.

MTC/RTC Ruling: RTC dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the respondents had no
cause of action, and that the action was barred by prescription and laches.

CA Ruling: The CA reversed and held that the determination of whether respondents
have a right to recover the ownership of the subject properties, or whether
their action is barred by prescription or laches requires evidentiary proof
which can be threshed out, not in a motion to dismiss, but in a full-blown
trial.

Issue: WON respondents have a cause of action against the petitioner (NO)

SC Ruling: A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal
 right of the other. Its elements are the following: (1) the legal right of plaintiff;
(2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of
the defendant in violation of said legal right. The existence of a cause of
action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Thus, in the
resolution of a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action,
only the facts
alleged in the complaint must be considered.

However, while a trial court focuses on the factual allegations in a

complaint, it cannot disregard statutes and decisions material and relevant
to the proper appreciation of the questions before it. In resolving a motion to
dismiss, every court must take judicial notice of decisions this Court has
rendered as provided by Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. -- A court shall take

judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence
and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of
the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions.

In reversing the Orders of the RTC, the Court of Appeals failed to consider
the decision of this Court in Mactan-Cebu International Airport v. Court of
Appeals, rendered on November 27, 2000, which settled the issue of
whether the properties expropriated under Civil Case No. R- 1881 will be
reconveyed to the original owners if the purpose for which it was
expropriated is ended or abandoned or if the property was to be used other
than the expansion or improvement of the Lahug airport.

In said case, the Court held that the terms of the judgment in Civil Case No.
R-1881 were clear and unequivocal. It granted title over the expropriated
land to the Republic of the Philippines in fee simple without any condition
that it would be returned to the owners or that the owners had a right to
repurchase the same if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended
or abandoned or if the property was to be used other than as the Lahug
airport.

Had the appellate court considered the import of the ruling in Mactan-Cebu
International Airport v. Court of Appeals, it would have found that
respondents can invoke no right against the petitioner since the subject
lands were acquired by the State in fee simple. Thus, the first element of a
cause of action, i.e., plaintiff's legal right, is not present in the instant case.

Others