This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners likewise seek a reversal of the ruling in Carlos Superdrug Corporation[16] that the tax deduction scheme adopted by the government is justified by police power.[17] They assert that "[a]lthough both police power and the power of eminent domain have the general welfare for their object, there are still traditional distinctions between the two"[18] and that "eminent domain cannot be made less supreme than police power."[19] Petitioners further claim that the legislature, in amending RA 7432, relied on an erroneous contemporaneous construction that prior payment of taxes is required for tax credit.[20] | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Proceeding from the principle of jus regalia, the right to eminent domain has always been considered as a fundamental state power that is inseparable from sovereignty.[23] It is described as the State's inherent power that need not be granted even by the Constitution,[24]and as the government's right to appropriate, in the nature of compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose.[25] | |||||
|
2005-08-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The subject property is expropriated for the purpose of constructing a road. The respondent is not mandated to comply with the essential requisites for an easement of right-of-way under the New Civil Code. Case law has it that in the absence of legislative restriction, the grantee of the power of eminent domain may determine the location and route of the land to be taken[66] unless such determination is capricious and wantonly injurious.[67] Expropriation is justified so long as it is for the public good and there is genuine necessity of public character.[68] Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken.[69] | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Eminent domain is the authority and right of the state, as sovereign, to take private property for public use upon observance of due process of law and payment of just compensation.[16] The power of eminent domain may be validly delegated to the local governments, other public entities and public utilities[17] such as NPC. Expropriation is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain.[18] "Eminent Domain" was the former title of Rule 67 of the 1964 Rules of Court. In the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on 1 July 1997, the prescribed method of expropriation is still found in Rule 67, but its title is now "Expropriation." | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The issue of the necessity of the expropriation is a matter properly addressed to the RTC in the course of the expropriation proceedings. If petitioner objects to the necessity of the takeover of her property, she should say so in her Answer to the Complaint.[21] The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it.[22] | |||||