Fery vs. Municipality of Cabanatuan

When land is expropriated for public use and the decree grants a fee simple title unconditionally, the expropriator becomes the absolute owner. The former owner retains no rights, and the property does not revert even if the original public use is abandoned or changed.

The Municipality of Cabanatuan initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire private land for the construction of a public market. The Court of First Instance granted the expropriation and ordered the municipality to pay the owners. The municipality took possession and later used the land for a different purpose (rental houses), prompting the former owner to seek recovery of the property.

• Filed directly with the SC as an original action for mandamus.
• The respondent (Municipality of Cabanatuan) filed a demurrer to the petition.
• The SC sustained the demurrer.

• The Municipality of Cabanatuan filed an expropriation case (Case No. 950) to acquire land for a public market.
• On July 9, 1915, the Court of First Instance rendered a final judgment granting the municipality the land and ordering it to pay the owners specified amounts.
• The petitioner, Juan Fery, is the former owner of the land.
• The municipality constructed rental houses on the land, not a public market.
• The petitioner alleged he had not been paid the amount due for his land.

• The municipality expropriated the land for a specific public purpose (a public market).
• By abandoning that purpose and using the land for a different one (rental houses), the municipality lost its right to the property.
• The land should revert to its former owner (the petitioner).

• The municipality acquired a fee simple title to the land through the final expropriation judgment.
• The title is absolute and unconditional, so a change in use does not affect ownership.
• The petitioner's claim for unpaid compensation is a separate matter and does not entitle him to recovery of the land itself.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether land expropriated for a particular public use reverts to the former owner when that use is abandoned.
  • Whether the character of the title acquired (fee simple vs. conditional) determines the right of reversion.

• Procedural: The SC sustained the respondent's demurrer, effectively dismissing the petition.
• Substantive:
  • The SC ruled against the petitioner. The right of reversion depends entirely on the character of the title acquired by the expropriator.
  • If the decree of expropriation grants a fee simple title unconditionally, the expropriator becomes the absolute owner. The former owner's rights are completely extinguished.
  • Abandonment of the original public use or a change in use does not cause the property to revert. The petitioner's remedy, if any, lies in a separate action to recover the unpaid compensation, not to recover the land.

• Fee Simple Title Doctrine in Expropriation — When the government or its instrumentality expropriates land and the judgment grants title in fee simple without conditions, ownership is absolute and indefeasible. The land becomes the private property of the expropriator, free from any claim of the former owner, even if the public purpose is later abandoned.
• Conditional vs. Unconditional Expropriation — The SC distinguished between two scenarios:
  1. Conditional Expropriation: If the decree specifies that the land must be used for a particular purpose and shall revert if that use ceases, the former owner reacquires the property upon abandonment.
  2. Unconditional Expropriation (Fee Simple): If the decree grants an absolute title, no right of reversion exists. Non-user or change of use does not defeat the title.

• "If, upon the contrary, however, the decree of expropriation gives to the entity a fee simple title, then, of course, the land becomes the absolute property of the expropriator... and in that case the non-user does not have the effect of defeating the title acquired by the expropriation proceedings."
• "When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple unconditionally... the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned, or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner."

• Reichling vs. Covington Lumber Co. (57 Wash., 225) — Cited as authority on the effect of a fee simple title acquired through expropriation.
• McConlihay vs. Wright (121 U.S., 201) — Cited as persuasive authority on the nature of title acquired in eminent domain.
• Fort Wayne vs. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co. (132 Ind., 558) — Cited for the principle that an unconditional fee simple title is not affected by a change in public use.

• The decision is primarily based on general principles of eminent domain and property law as derived from American jurisprudence, which was highly persuasive in the Philippine legal system at the time. No specific Philippine statute or constitutional article is cited as the basis for the ruling.