Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 194168 2013-02-13	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. PLACIDO PERALTA, J.
On December 11, 2000, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Subsequently, on December 15, 2000, respondents filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the consolidated cases of Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al.[7] and Department of Agrarian Reform v. Court of Appeals, et al.[8] Respondents argued that the total amount of P1,479,023.00, which is equivalent to P7.00 per square meter for 21.1289 hectares, adjudged by the SAC as just compensation, could then be withdrawn under the authority of the aforementioned case.[9]
	GR Nos. 179431-32 2010-06-22	LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
The provision is daylight clear. The Legislature thereby deprived the party-list organization of the right to change its nominees or to alter the order of nominees once the list is submitted to the COMELEC, except when: (a) the nominee dies; (b) the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; or (c) the nominee becomes incapacitated. The provision must be read literally because its language is plain and free from ambiguity, and expresses a single, definite, and sensible meaning. Such meaning is conclusively presumed to be the meaning that the Legislature has intended to convey. Even where the courts should be convinced that the Legislature really intended some other meaning, and even where the literal interpretation should defeat the very purposes of the enactment, the explicit declaration of the Legislature is still the law, from which the courts must not depart.[34] When the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no reason for interpretation or construction, but only for application.[35] Accordingly, an administrative agency tasked to implement a statute may not construe it by expanding its meaning where its provisions are clear and unambiguous.[36]
	GR No. 183279 2010-01-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD VELASCO JR., J.
In light of the foregoing considerations, it is but just and proper to allow, with becoming dispatch, withdrawal of the revised compensation amount, albeit protested. The concept of just compensation contemplates of just and timely payment; it embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the landowner, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking.[15] Without prompt payment, compensation cannot, as Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals[16] instructs, be considered "just," for the owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for years before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.
	GR No. 148223 2004-11-25	FERNANDO GABATIN v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We must stress, at the outset, that the taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding.[45] In a number of cases, we have stated that in computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, it is the value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of judgment, which should be taken into consideration.[46] This being so, then in determining the value of the land for the payment of just compensation, the time of taking should be the basis. In the instant case, since the dispute over the valuation of the land depends on the rate of the GSP used in the equation, it necessarily follows that the GSP should be pegged at the time of the taking of the properties.