Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JUAN H. IMPERIAL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182431 2013-02-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
The Imperial case[23] is an applicable precedent.
	GR No. 171840 2011-04-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We must stress, at this juncture, that the taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding. In a number of cases, we have stated that just compensation in expropriation proceedings represents 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. To compensate is to render something which is equal in value to that taken or received.[32]
	GR No. 182431 2010-11-17	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
We similarly upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[22] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[23] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[24] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[25] Nepomuceno v. City of Surigao,[26] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[27]
	GR No. 164195 2010-10-12	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
We subsequently upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[20] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[22] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[23] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[24]
	GR Nos. 180772 and 180776 2010-05-06	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, J.
Respondents counter that the award of interest until full payment of just compensation was correctly adhered to by the lower courts in line with the Court's ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[17] which found it inequitable to determine just compensation based solely on the formula provided by DAR Administrative Order No. 13, as amended. According to respondents, the award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to ensure prompt payment. Moreover, respondents claim that the date LBP approves the payment of the land transfer claim and deposits the proceeds in the name of the landowner is not tantamount to actual payment because on said date, the release of the amount is conditioned on certain requirements.[18]
	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
In Philippine Railway Company v. Solon,[15] decided in 1909, the Court treated interest as part of just compensation when the payment to the owner was delayed. There, the Court, relying heavily on American jurisprudence, declared: Our attention has not been called to any Act of the Commission relating to the matter of interest. But that the owner is entitled to interest from the time when the company took possession of the property on the second day of February, 1907, until the decision of the court on the 16th day of June, 1908, we think is clear. The statute requires just compensation to be made to the owner for his property taken, and section 246 above cited requires the court to make such final order and judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his rights under the law, and to the defendant just compensation for the land so taken. The defendant, the owner, was deprived of the use of his property from the 2d day of February, 1907, until the 19th day of July, 1908. He lost the use of it for this time, and it cannot be said that he has received just compensation for it if he is not allowed interest upon the value of the property during that time. In the case of The Pennsylvania Railroad Co. vs. Cooper (58 Penn. St., 408), the court said at page 409: