Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SALEM INVESTMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171101 2012-04-24	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Upon separate motions of the parties for reconsideration, the Court, by Resolution[3] of November 22, 2011, recalled and set aside the option thus granted to the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI, while maintaining that all the benefits and homelots received by all the FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them.
	GR NO. 158609 2007-07-27	SPS. MARIAN B. LINTAG AND ANGELO T. ARRASTIA v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners x x x.[27] It is only upon the completion of these two stages that expropriation is said to have been completed. The process is not complete until payment of just compensation.[28] Accordingly, the issuance of the writ of possession in this case does not write finis to the expropriation proceedings. To effectuate the transfer of ownership, it is necessary for the NPC to pay the property owners the final just compensation.[29]
	GR NO. 164079 2007-04-03	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. DR. ANTERO BONGBONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
True, an easement of a right of way transmits no rights except the easement itself, and respondent retains full ownership of the property. The acquisition of such easement is, nevertheless, not gratis. As correctly observed by the CA, considering the nature and the effect of the installation power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would deprive respondent of normal use of the property. For this reason, the latter is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land.[54] Finally, the CA did not err in not directing the transfer of the title over the subject property to petitioner since no payment has yet been made. It is only upon payment of just compensation that title over the property passes to the expropriator.[55]
	GR NO. 166429 2005-12-19	REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON TINGA, J.
It is only upon the completion of these two stages that expropriation is said to have been completed. In Republic v. Salem Investment Corporation[63] , we ruled that, "the process is not completed until payment of just compensation." Thus, here, the failure of the Republic to pay respondent and his predecessors-in-interest for a period of 57 years rendered the expropriation process incomplete. Lim serves fair warning to the Government and its agencies who consistently refuse to pay just compensation due to the private property owner whose property had been expropriated. At the same time, Lim emphasizes the fragility of the rights of the Government as possessor pending the final payment of just compensation, without diminishing the potency of such rights. Indeed, the public policy, enshrined foremost in the Constitution, mandates that the Government must pay for the private property it expropriates. Consequently, the proper judicial attitude is to guarantee compliance with this primordial right to just compensation.
	GR NO. 161656 2005-06-29	REPUBLIC v. VICENTE G. LIM SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is only upon the completion of these two stages that expropriation is said to have been completed. In Republic v. Salem Investment Corporation,[16] we ruled that, "the process is not completed until payment of just compensation." Thus, here, the failure of the Republic to pay respondent and his predecessors-in-interest for a period of 57 years rendered the expropriation process incomplete.
	GR NO. 147245 2005-03-31	REPUBLIC v. CA CARPIO, J.
The exercise of eminent domain entails payment of just compensation. Otherwise, title over the expropriated property cannot pass to the government.[22] Following its own enabling law, NIA should have taken steps to acquire the affected portion of the Property either through "any mode of acquisition" or "the institution of expropriation proceedings."[23] RA 3601, as amended, does not authorize NIA to simply appropriate part of the Property without instituting legal proceedings or compensating respondent.