Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 165828 2011-08-24	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MACABANGKIT BERSAMIN, J.
The existence of the tunnel underneath the land of the Heirs of Macabangkit, being a factual matter, cannot now be properly reviewed by the Court, for questions of fact are beyond the pale of a petition for review on certiorari. Moreover, the factual findings and determinations by the RTC as the trial court are generally binding on the Court, particularly after the CA affirmed them.[13] Bearing these doctrines in mind, the Court should rightly dismiss NPC's appeal.
	GR No. 166553 2009-07-30	REPUBLIC v. SPS. RUPERTO LIBUNAO AND SONIA P. SANOPO AND HEIRS OF BENITA DOMINGO PERALTA, J.
Clearly, respondents are entitled to the payment of legal interest on the compensation for the subject lands from the time of the taking of their possession up to the time that full payment is made by petitioner.[20] In accordance with jurisprudence, the legal interest allowed in payment of just
	GR No. 175176 2008-10-17	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SANTA LORO VDA. DE CAPIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Reference may be made to National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals.[34] In the said case, after therein petitioner NAPOCOR withdrew its second Petition for Expropriation, what was left for the trial court's determination was the counterclaim of therein private respondent Antonino Pobre, contained in his Motion to Dismiss, for damages. The Court ruled therein:"In this case, NPC appropriated [private respondent's] Property without resort to expropriation proceedings. NPC dismissed its own complaint for the second expropriation. At no point did NPC institute expropriation proceedings for the lots outside the 5,554 square-meter portion subject of the second expropriation. The only issues that the trial court had to settle were the amount of just compensation and damages that NPC had to pay [private respondent].
	GR NO. 162779 2007-06-15	HEIRS OF MATEO PIDACAN v. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE QUISUMBING, J.
When private property is rendered uninhabitable by an entity with the power to exercise eminent domain, the taking is deemed complete.[12] Taking occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property.[13]
	GR NO. 164079 2007-04-03	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. DR. ANTERO BONGBONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
In National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[50] the Court clarified that when there is no action for expropriation and the case involves only a complaint for damages or just compensation, the provisions of Rule 67 would not apply, thus:In this case, NPC appropriated Pobre's Property without resort to expropriation proceedings. NPC dismissed its own complaint for the second expropriation. At no point did NPC institute expropriation proceedings for the lots outside the 5,554 square-meter portion subject of the second expropriation. The only issues that the trial court had to settle were the amount of just compensation and damages that NPC had to pay Pobre.
	GR NO. 153057 2006-08-07	MR. v. G.V.T. ENGINEERING SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court upholds the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts with respect to petitioners' liability for breach of their contract with respondent. Questions of facts are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as a petition for review may only raise questions of law.[23] Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on this Court.[24] More so, as in this case, where petitioners have failed to show that the courts below overlooked or disregarded certain facts or circumstances of such import as would have altered the outcome of the case.[25] The Court, thus, finds no reason to set aside the lower courts' factual findings.
	GR NO. 145259 2005-10-25	CASIMIRO R. NADELA v. ENGINEERING CARPIO, J.
Thus, the conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that Nadela has custody of the remaining tools and equipment of ECCO-ASIA is based on the records of the case. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court and supported by sufficient evidence, are binding on this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal.[33]
	GR NO. 166964 2005-10-11	PATRICIA L. TIONGSON v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is true that we held in National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals[11] (NAPOCOR) that when the defendant claims that his land suffered damage because of the expropriation, the dismissal of the action should not foreclose the defendant's right to have the damages ascertained either in the same case or in a separate action.[12] However, this pronouncement is not applicable in the instant case.
	GR NO. 147245 2005-03-31	REPUBLIC v. CA CARPIO, J.
When a government agency itself violates procedural requirements, it waives the usual procedure prescribed in Rule 67. This Court ruled in the recent case of National Power Corporation ("NPC") v. Court of Appeals,[28] to wit:We have held that the usual procedure in the determination of just compensation is waived when the government itself initially violates procedural requirements. NPC's taking of Pobre's property without filing the appropriate expropriation proceedings and paying him just compensation is a transgression of procedural due process.[29] (Emphasis supplied.)