This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In its motion for reconsideration[13] of the foregoing Decision, LBP insisted on its valuation of the subject land, which already factored in the market value per tax declaration in 1995 when the land was offered, in accordance with the formula[14] prescribed under DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by AO No. 11, Series of 1994. The RTC, however, factored in the market value in the 1997 Tax Declaration of the subject land to arrive at its own valuation. Thus, LBP protested what it called the "double take up" of the market value per tax declaration.[15] | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] are the May 19, 2006 Decision[3] and August 15, 2006 Resolution[4] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89783 which dismissed petitioners' Petition for Review and denied their Motion for Reconsideration respectively. Said assailed CA Decision which affirmed the February 28, 2005 Resolution[5] of the Office of the President (OP), in O.P. Case No. 04-F-262, states, viz: In fine, we hold that public respondent Office of the President, in affirming the resolution of the Secretary of the DPWH which sustained the resolution and the demolition order of the OBO, committed no grave abuse of discretion, the same being supported by evidence and having been issued in accordance with law and jurisprudence. | |||||