Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION v. PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187604 2012-06-25	CITY OF MANILA v. ALEGAR CORPORATION ABAD, J.
But the advance deposit required under Section 19 of the Local Government Code constitutes an advance payment only in the event the expropriation prospers. Such deposit also has a dual purpose: as pre-payment if the expropriation succeeds and as indemnity for damages if it is dismissed. This advance payment, a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of possession, should not be confused with payment of just compensation for the taking of property even if it could be a factor in eventually determining just compensation.[16] If the proceedings fail, the money could be used to indemnify the owner for damages.[17]
	GR No. 176487 2009-08-25	REPUBLIC v. FAR EAST ENTERPRISES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under said law, the requirements for authorizing immediate entry in expropriation proceedings involving real property are: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; (2) due notice to the defendant; (3) payment of an amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR including payment of the value of the improvements and/or structures if any, or if no such valuation is available and in cases of utmost urgency, the payment of the proffered value of the property to be seized; and (4) presentation to the court of a certificate of availability of funds from the proper officials.[54]
	GR No. 175983 2009-04-16	METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. J. KING TINGA, J.
R.A. No. 8974 provides a different scheme for the obtention of a writ of possession. The law does not require a deposit with a government bank; instead it requires the government to immediately pay the property owner.[42] The provisional character of this payment means that it is not yet final, yet, sufficient under the law to entitle the Government to the writ of possession over the expropriated property.[43] The provisional payment is a prerequisite[44] and a trigger[45] for the issuance of the writ of possession. In Gingoyon,[46] we held that: It is the plain intent of Rep. Act No. 8974 to supersede the system of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of "immediate payment" in cases involving national government infrastructure projects.[47]
	GR No. 170147 2009-01-30	REPUBLIC v. SPS. AGUSTIN AND IMELDA CANCIO CORONA, J.
Clearly, there was a confusion regarding the nature of the amount to be paid for the issuance of a writ of possession. In Capitol Steel Corporation v. PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority,[16] we clarified that the payment of the provisional value as a condition for the issuance of a writ of possession is different from the payment of just compensation for the expropriated property. While the provisional value is based on the current relevant zonal valuation, just compensation is based on the prevailing fair market value of the property.