This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Yet all is not lost for petitioner. It may properly file an action for mandamus to compel the local government of Las Piñas City to enforce with reasonable dispatch the eviction, demolition, and relocation of respondents and any other persons similarly situated in order to give flesh to one of the avowed policies of R.A. 7279, which is to reduce urban dysfunctions, particularly those that adversely affect public health, safety, and ecology.[28] Indeed, as one of the basic human needs, housing is a matter of state concern as it directly and significantly affects the general welfare.[29] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the light of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that "socialized housing" falls within the confines of "public use". It is, particularly important to draw attention to paragraph (d) of Pres. Dec. No. 1224 which should be construed in relation with the preceding three paragraphs. Provisions on economic opportunities inextricably linked with low-cost housing, or slum clearance, relocation and resettlement, or slum improvement emphasize the public purpose of the project.[62] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The appellate court itself found that respondents' act of reviving Civil Case No. 1800 without impleading petitioner (who, as respondents were very much aware, was the one already occupying and actively managing the restaurant) was "very revealing of their dishonest intention and bad faith that resulted to (sic) [the] prejudice and damage" of petitioner.[5] The appellate court also made the following findings:... the lease contract of August 12, 1991 is binding and in force at the time [respondents] caused the execution of the judgment in the ejectment case. | |||||