This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| With respect to the amount of interest on just compensation, we decisively ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals[342] that the just compensation due to the property owner is effectively a forbearance of money, and not indemnity for damages.[343] Citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[344] we awarded a legal interest of 12% per annum on just compensation. The Court upheld the imposition of the 12% interest rate in just compensation cases, as ruled in Republic, in Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[345] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[346] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[347] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[348] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[349] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[350] The Court reiterated the Republic ruling in Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[351] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera,[352] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Goduco,[353] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Santiago, Jr.[354] | |||||
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Neither do we find error in the CA's ruling that petitioner cannot be made to pay for the costs of the suit for since it is an instrumentality performing a governmental function in agrarian reform proceedings, charged with the disbursement of public funds, it is exempt from the payment of costs of suit under Section 1, Rule 142 of the Rules of Court.[26] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We need to scrape off the procedural lamina to reach the basic issue that it coated: the correctness of the valuation by the courts below of the property of Castro which he offered to sell to the DAR. Vital to the resolution of the issue is the fact stated by Castro in his petition below that "on June 20, 1994, [he] voluntarily offered to sell (VOS) the above described land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)"[18] such that his petition was precisely captioned "In the Matter of Judicial Determination of Just Compensation of Land Sold Under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) Under RA 6657, Identified as Lot No. 2636, CAD. 537-D, with an area of 9.3390 Has. located at Brgy. Mahayag, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur."[19] The petition is a prayer for just compensation, under RA No. 6657, of a parcel of land taken when offered in 1994. The determination of compensation under such circumstances has been the subject of various decisions of this Court. We stated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Goduco,[20] referring to Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido;[21] Land of the Philippines v. Esther Rivera;[22] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. DAR:[23] | |||||
|
2012-10-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Quoting Republic v. Court of Appeals[58] this Court, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera,[59] held: The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be 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, if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interest on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of the property and the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred. | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This formula has been repeatedly applied in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido;[41] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Esther Rivera;[42] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Department of Agrarian Reform.[43] | |||||