This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Corollarily, it has been held that trial courts should exercise care and circumspection in the resolution of just compensation cases, considering that they involve the expenditure of public funds.[39] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Similarly, in National Power Corporation v. Diato-Bernal,[22] this Court rejected the valuation recommended by court-appointed commissioners whose conclusions were devoid of any actual and reliable basis. The market values of the subject property's neighboring lots were found to be mere estimates and unsupported by any corroborative documents, such as sworn declarations of realtors in the area concerned, tax declarations or zonal valuation from the BIR for the contiguous residential dwellings and commercial establishments. Thus, we ruled that a commissioners' report of land prices which is not based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the court. | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample. Such "just"-ness of the compensation can only be attained by using reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property.[24] Trial courts are required to be more circumspect in its evaluation of just compensation due the property owner, considering that eminent domain cases involve the expenditure of public funds.[25] | |||||
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners posit that the tax deduction scheme contravenes Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution, which provides that: "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."[11] In support of their position, petitioners cite Central Luzon Drug Corporation,[12] where it was ruled that the 20% discount privilege constitutes taking of private property for public use which requires the payment of just compensation,[13] and Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. Department of Social Welfare and Development,[14] where it was acknowledged that the tax deduction scheme does not meet the definition of just compensation.[15] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The same ruling was arrived at in National Power Corporation v. Diato-Bernal,[31] where we overturned the ruling of the trial court and the CA adopting the findings of the commissioners sans supporting documentary evidence therefor. Thus: It is evident that the above conclusions are highly speculative and devoid of any actual and reliable basis. First, the market values of the subject property's neighboring lots were mere estimates and unsupported by any corroborative documents, such as sworn declarations of realtors in the area concerned, tax declarations or zonal valuation from the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the contiguous residential dwellings and commercial establishments. The report also failed to elaborate on how and by how much the community centers and convenience facilities enhanced the value of respondent's property. Finally, the market sales data and price listings alluded to in the report were not even appended thereto.[32] | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The "just"-ness of just compensation can only be attained by using reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property.[33]The CA attempts to provide the legal basis for the Schedule of Fair Market Values, noting that it is based on the joint appraisal report on fair market value of lands by Cuervo Appraisal, Inc., Development Bank of the Philippines, and the Land Bank of the Philippines, and the fair market values established by the respective Provincial Appraisal Committee of Zambales, Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, and Bulacan, as well as the City Appraisal Committee of San Carlos and Cabanatuan.[34] | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Just compensation has been defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator."[12] The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.[13] In determining just compensation, the price or value of the property at the time it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the government shall be the basis. If the government takes possession of the land before the institution of expropriation proceedings, the value should be fixed as of the time of the taking of said possession, not of the filing of the complaint.[14] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.[32] The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be a sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly defined as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition; or the fair value of the property; as between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.[33] | |||||