This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We cannot accept petitioner's valuation as it failed to consider the value of the property at the time of taking, the current value of like properties being among those factors enumerated in Section 17. Indeed, these administrative issuances or orders, though they enjoy the presumption of legalities, are still subject to the interpretation by the Supreme Court pursuant to its power to interpret the law. While rules and regulation issued by the administrative bodies have the force and effect of law and are entitled to great respect, courts interpret administrative regulations in harmony with the law that authorized them and avoid as much as possible any construction that would annul them as invalid exercise of legislative power.[33] | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Following A.O. 13-94, the 6% yearly interest compounded annually shall be reckoned from 21 October 1972 up to the effectivity date of this Order which was on 21 October 1994. However, A.O. 02-04[31] extended the period of application of 6% interest from 21 October 1972 up to the time of actual payment but not later than December 2006. Then, under A.O. 06-08,[32] the application of 6% interest was further until 31 December 2009. It must be noted that the term "actual payment" in the administrative orders is to be interpreted as "full payment" pursuant to the ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Obias[33] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano.[34] | |||||