Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ ET AL.

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 164195 2010-10-12	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
Under the circumstances of the present case, we see no compelling reason to depart from the rule that Republic firmly established. Let it be remembered that shorn of its eminent domain and social justice aspects, what the agrarian land reform program involves is the purchase by the government, through the LBP, of agricultural lands for sale and distribution to farmers. As a purchase, it involves an exchange of values - the landholdings in exchange for the LBP's payment. In determining the just compensation for this exchange, however, the measure to be borne in mind is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss[25] since what is involved is the takeover of private property under the State's coercive power. As mentioned above, in the value-for-value exchange in an eminent domain situation, the State must ensure that the individual whose property is taken is not shortchanged and must hence carry the burden of showing that the "just compensation" requirement of the Bill of Rights is satisfied.
	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.[40] Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.[41] It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss.[42] The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[43] (Emphases supplied.)
	GR No. 160080 2009-06-19	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CARLOS VILLAMOR CARPIO, J.
Thus, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the trial and appellate courts. Indeed, respondent is entitled to just compensation or the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation.[30] Since the determination of just compensation in expropriation proceedings is essentially a judicial function, this Court finds the amount of P450 per square meter to be just and reasonable compensation for the expropriated lands of respondent.
	GR NO. 164195 2007-02-06	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.[62] Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.[63] It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss.[64] The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[65]
	GR NO. 166429 2005-12-19	REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON TINGA, J.
But while the appointment of commissioners under the aegis of Rule 67 may be sanctioned in expropriation proceedings under Rep. Act No. 8974, the standards to be observed for the determination of just compensation are provided not in Rule 67 but in the statute. In particular, the governing standards for the determination of just compensation for the NAIA 3 facilities are found in Section 10 of the Implementing Rules for Rep. Act No. 8974, which provides for the replacement cost method in the valuation of improvements and structures.[68]
	GR No. 109338 2000-11-20	CAMARINES NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. CA PARDO, J.
Just compensation has been understood to be the just and complete equivalent of the loss, which the owner of the res expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation.[41] The value of the land and its character at the time it was taken by the Government are the criteria for determining just compensation.[42] No matter how commendable petitioner's purpose is, it is just and equitable that Vines Realty be compensated the fair and full equivalent for the taking of its property, which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity.[43]