This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-02-10 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint.[31] (emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint.[18] We note that in this case, the filing of the complaint for expropriation preceded the petitioner's entry into the property. | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| By Decision[27] of November 10, 2004, the appellate court nullified the June 8, 1998 Compromise Agreement between NPC and Romonafe as being contrary to the B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals[28] ruling that just compensation should be ascertained at the time of the filing of the complaint, adding that it was disadvantageous to the government. And it fixed the market value of Romonafe's property at P1,500 per square meter.[29] Thus it disposed: | |||||
|
2006-08-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner claims that public respondent's reliance on the ruling of this Court in B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals[20] is misplaced. To sustain public respondent's contention that the just compensation may be determined as of the filing of the complaint for expropriation is to condone the usurpation by the government of private property by the simple expedient of filing a complaint even if the latter is not prepared to allocate the requisite funds therefor. | |||||