Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 198139 2014-09-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FELICISIMO TARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In its Petition and Consolidated Reply,[32] NPC argues that while there is no dispute as to its liability to respondents, the Sheriff's computation as reflected in the Notice of Garnishment is erroneous in that it is being made to pay for more than what was adjudged; just compensation should be limited to the value of that portion so taken, and not the entire property of which such portion forms part. It cites cases where the computation and payment of just compensation was limited to the value of the affected portions only.[33] It continues to plead for liberality in respect to its Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's September 24, 2009 Order, which was denied via the October 23, 2009 Order for lack of the required notice of hearing.
	GR No. 203039 2013-09-11	REPUBLIC v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CARPIO, J.
Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated.[46] The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled to is the market value.[47] Market value is that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be paid by the buyer and received by the seller. The general rule, however, is modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated.[48] In such a case, the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken, he is also entitled to recover the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property.[49]
	GR No. 169957 2012-07-11	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO BRION, J.
We also declared in National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation[27]that Section 3A of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended (which provides a fixed formula in the computation of just compensation in cases of acquisition of easements of right of way) is not binding upon this Court. This is in keeping with the established rule that the determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function.[28]
	GR No. 166553 2009-07-30	REPUBLIC v. SPS. RUPERTO LIBUNAO AND SONIA P. SANOPO AND HEIRS OF BENITA DOMINGO PERALTA, J.
In National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation,[10] the Court held: There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law. The issue raised by petitioner of whether or not only an easement fee of 10% of the market value of the expropriated properties should be paid to the affected owners is a question of law. This issue does not call for the reevaluation of the probative value of the evidence presented but rather the determination of whether the pertinent laws cited by NAPOCOR in support of its argument are applicable to the instant case.[11]
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
But not the RTC which, needless to stress, does not look up to the President as administrative head in the first place. Any valuation or standard that may be set forth in AO 50 for just compensation may serve only as guiding norm or one of the factors in arriving at an ideal amount. But it may not take the place of the court's own disposition as to what amount should be paid and how to arrive at such amount.[114] After all, the determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a judicial function.[115] AO 50, or any executive issuance for that matter, cannot decree that the executive, or the department's own determination, shall have primacy over the court's findings.[116] These pronouncements can, however, be applied only to pending condemnation proceedings prior to November 26, 2000 when RA 8974 took effect. As of that date, RA 8974 had repealed AO 50 for being inconsistent with the said law.
	GR No. 166973 2009-02-10	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN ONG CO TINGA, J.
As a final note, the function for determining just compensation remains judicial in character. In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay,[38] and National Power Corporation v. Purefoods,[39] we ruled:The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.[40]
	GR No. 180986 2008-12-10	NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court had repeatedly clarified the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.[36] A question of fact, on the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[37] When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.[38]
	GR No. 164964 2008-10-17	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MARIA BAGUI TINGA, J.
In the case of NPC v. Purefoods,[42] NPC had to acquire an easement of right-of-way over certain parcels of land in Bulacan for the construction and maintenance of the San Jose-San Manuel 500 KV Transmission Line Project. The Court, invoking National Power Corporation v. Aguirre-Paderanga,[43] also sustained the affected property owner's right to recover consequential damages in addition to the market value, in cases where only a part of a certain property is expropriated.[44]
	GR No. 169576 2008-10-17	LEONIDES MERCADO v. CA CORONA, J.
Aggrieved, Mercado and EASCO appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA)[10] insisting that Mercado did not default in the payment of his obligations to SMC.